Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
another interesting calculation
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Rupert
Apr 25, 2013, 12:43:03 AM4/25/13
to
It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows.
No doubt David Harrison can tell us whether this life is of "positive value" or "negative value".
The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows.
No doubt David Harrison can tell us whether this life is of "positive value" or "negative value".
George Plimpton
Apr 25, 2013, 1:24:39 AM4/25/13
to
On 4/24/2013 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
These conversion factor stories are meaningless. It often takes a lot
> It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
of various input factors to create one unit of desirable output. So
what? So fucking what? It takes a lot of labor hours to produce one
Rolls-Royce car; many times more than is required to produce one low-end
Kia or other cheap car. So what? There are people who want Rolls-Royce
and other expensive cars, and there is no moral case to be made that
they "ought" to be forced to buy Kias or some other cheap shitty make
instead.
People want relatively resource-intensive meat. As long as they can
afford it, there's no reason they shouldn't have it. As I demonstrated
long ago, what matters is economic efficiency, not physical efficiency.
Rupert
Apr 25, 2013, 1:39:11 AM4/25/13
to
dh
Apr 25, 2013, 6:14:24 PM4/25/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>
>The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows.
>
>No doubt David Harrison can tell us whether this life is of "positive value" or "negative value".
I've told you plenty of times I believe that by far most dairy cattle have
lives of positive value, and ESPECIALLY those which are grain fed as well as
grass and hay fed. Even you have pretended that you thought some grass raised
cattle could possibly have lives of positive value. Do you now want to retract
that AGAIN? Or do you want to restrict it to only beef cattle or something like
that?
wrote:
>It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>
>The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows.
>
>No doubt David Harrison can tell us whether this life is of "positive value" or "negative value".
lives of positive value, and ESPECIALLY those which are grain fed as well as
grass and hay fed. Even you have pretended that you thought some grass raised
cattle could possibly have lives of positive value. Do you now want to retract
that AGAIN? Or do you want to restrict it to only beef cattle or something like
that?
dh
Apr 25, 2013, 6:14:32 PM4/25/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:24:39 AM UTC+2, Goowrote:
I might find it interesting if you'd do it for cage free eggs. And also what
sort of influence it could have on caged egg production. Remember that the ONLY
reason for buying cage free eggs is to contribute to better lives for laying
hens and it doesn't do the consumer any good at all. Quite the opposite in fact
because the eggs are smaller, the shells are more likely to crumble and the
membrane thicker making them harder to open without breaking the yolk, plus they
cost significantly more. But I buy them and cussed a few earlier today. If you
bought them you would be doing something instead of nothing as I pointed out to
you in the past countless times, even if you don't eat them but instead give
them to someone who buys cage raised eggs, or to someone to feed their pets, or
just throw them in the trash... That would be better than nothing, but if you
could eliminate a caged egg purchase or more that would be doing twice as much
or more. Do you think that would be more than twice as much as doing nothing? Or
only twice as much as doing nothing?
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:24:39 AM UTC+2, Goowrote:
sort of influence it could have on caged egg production. Remember that the ONLY
reason for buying cage free eggs is to contribute to better lives for laying
hens and it doesn't do the consumer any good at all. Quite the opposite in fact
because the eggs are smaller, the shells are more likely to crumble and the
membrane thicker making them harder to open without breaking the yolk, plus they
cost significantly more. But I buy them and cussed a few earlier today. If you
bought them you would be doing something instead of nothing as I pointed out to
you in the past countless times, even if you don't eat them but instead give
them to someone who buys cage raised eggs, or to someone to feed their pets, or
just throw them in the trash... That would be better than nothing, but if you
could eliminate a caged egg purchase or more that would be doing twice as much
or more. Do you think that would be more than twice as much as doing nothing? Or
only twice as much as doing nothing?
Rupert
Apr 25, 2013, 9:25:10 PM4/25/13
to
Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing. Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived. And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
Rupert
Apr 25, 2013, 9:26:18 PM4/25/13
to
George Plimpton
Apr 25, 2013, 9:51:15 PM4/25/13
to
Union not worth living?
Rupert
Apr 25, 2013, 10:05:13 PM4/25/13
to
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
Rupert
Apr 26, 2013, 2:34:31 AM4/26/13
to
I used a cumulative elasticity factor of 0.91, I assumed that an egg weighs 70 grams, and I used the estimate that a laying hen lives one year and produces 15.3 kg of eggs. If this were right then only 220 of its 365 days would be laying days. Could be right, I guess.
dh
Apr 30, 2013, 5:12:09 PM4/30/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
Probably not, but it sounds good to me.
>Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
organization, imo.
>Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
What do you think might be better?
>And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
could you do? Support it?
>Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
organization, imo.
>Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
could you do? Support it?
dh
Apr 30, 2013, 5:12:32 PM4/30/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:34:31 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
My impression was that they live a couple of years, and if you got your
information from an eliminationist organization I doubt they'd tell the truth.
Instead they'd take the worst case, make it even worse, and then present it as
the norm, imo.
information from an eliminationist organization I doubt they'd tell the truth.
Instead they'd take the worst case, make it even worse, and then present it as
the norm, imo.
dh
Apr 30, 2013, 5:13:18 PM4/30/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
that is?
wrote:
them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
that is?
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 4:24:04 AM5/2/13
to
However, I suspect that the estimate of one year of life and 15.3 kg of eggs produced in that year is for battery hens. You are interested in the corresponding estimates for cage-free laying hens. I think that the ratio would come out the same so that the calculation would be unaffected.
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 4:26:14 AM5/2/13
to
>
>
> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>
>
>
> What do you think might be better?
>
http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>
>
> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>
>
>
> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>
> could you do? Support it?
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 4:27:12 AM5/2/13
to
dh
May 2, 2013, 6:29:47 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
now.
>You are just trying to waste my time.
You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
OBVIOUSLY don't. This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
now.
>You are just trying to waste my time.
OBVIOUSLY don't. This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
dh
May 2, 2013, 6:33:27 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be. I'm
interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
they claim to believe.
>> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think might be better?
>>
>
>Did you have a look at this article?
>
>http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
What have I told you about things like that?
>> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>
>> could you do? Support it?
>
>I could refrain from buying eggs
Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
respectable thing to do.
interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
they claim to believe.
>> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think might be better?
>>
>
>Did you have a look at this article?
>
>http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>
>> could you do? Support it?
>
>I could refrain from buying eggs
respectable thing to do.
dh
May 2, 2013, 6:35:19 PM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:24:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
I would be glad to see caged hens eliminated and only cage free, so
contributing to life for caged hens is more negative than positive imo which you
don't care about.
contributing to life for caged hens is more negative than positive imo which you
don't care about.
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 10:38:27 PM5/2/13
to
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 10:43:42 PM5/2/13
to
On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>
>
>
> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>
>
>
> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
> I'm
>
> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>
> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>
> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>
> they claim to believe.
>
>
>
> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What do you think might be better?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Did you have a look at this article?
>
> >
>
> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>
>
>
> What have I told you about things like that?
>
>
>
> >> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>
> >>
>
> >> could you do? Support it?
>
> >
>
> >I could refrain from buying eggs
>
>
>
> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>
> respectable thing to do.
Rupert
May 2, 2013, 10:48:50 PM5/2/13
to
On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>
>
> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>
> >> >> Union not worth living?
>
> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>
> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>
> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
> >> that is?
>
> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>
> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>
> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>
> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>
> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>
> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>
I *did* present it, you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>
>
> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>
> >> >> Union not worth living?
>
> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>
> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>
> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
> >> that is?
>
> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>
> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>
> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>
> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>
> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>
> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>
> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>
> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>
> now.
>
> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>
> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>
> OBVIOUSLY don't.
> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>
> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>
> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>
> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>
> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>
> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>
> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>
> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>
> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>
> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>
> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>
> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>
> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>
> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
dh
May 6, 2013, 6:11:46 PM5/6/13
to
dh
May 6, 2013, 6:14:29 PM5/6/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck. I can keep moving on, but
you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
as you're stuck on that.
>> I'm
>>
>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>
>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>
>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>
>> they claim to believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>
>
>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
know of anything yourself.
>> >> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> could you do? Support it?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I could refrain from buying eggs
>>
>>
>>
>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>
>> respectable thing to do.
>
>But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
It's obvious to those of us who favor the cage free method and are opposed
to the cage method enough to buy cage free eggs and support cage free of cage
production. That doesn't include you so you're not mentally able to appreciate
it, but since I am mentally able I do.
>And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
I don't believe you. I think you provided a link that has nothing even you
think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
why you don't.
wrote:
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>
>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>
>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck. I can keep moving on, but
you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
as you're stuck on that.
>> I'm
>>
>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>
>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>
>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>
>> they claim to believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>
>
>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
know of anything yourself.
>> >> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> could you do? Support it?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I could refrain from buying eggs
>>
>>
>>
>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>
>> respectable thing to do.
>
>But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
to the cage method enough to buy cage free eggs and support cage free of cage
production. That doesn't include you so you're not mentally able to appreciate
it, but since I am mentally able I do.
>And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
why you don't.
dh
May 6, 2013, 6:18:01 PM5/6/13
to
On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
>
>> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>>
>> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>>
>> now.
>>
>
>I did, you ridiculous clown.
>
>> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>>
>> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>>
>> OBVIOUSLY don't.
>
>You wouldn't know because you refuse to click the link. It's not such a long article, you know.
It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is that none of it seems
worth presenting to you, letting me know there's nothing worth reading there.
>> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>>
>> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>>
>> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>>
>> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>>
>> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>>
>> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>>
>> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>>
>> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>>
>> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>>
>> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>>
>> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>>
>> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>>
>> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>>
>> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
>
>Why do you want to make up stories
I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>about what my links do and don't say instead of clicking them and finding out for yourself?
You've already let me know by not being able to present a single thing from
any of them that supports the idea that life is of negative value for the
animals in question. YOU HAVE ALREADY LET ME KNOW that there's nothing at any of
them even you feel supports what you want people to believe.
wrote:
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>>
>>
>> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>>
>> >> >> Union not worth living?
>>
>> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>>
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>>
>> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>> >> that is?
>>
>> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>>
>> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>>
>> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>>
>> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>>
>> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>>
>> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>>
>
>I *did* present it,
Try presenting some way in which I could try to pretend to believe you. Go:
>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>>
>>
>> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>>
>> >> >> Union not worth living?
>>
>> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>>
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>>
>> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>> >> that is?
>>
>> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>>
>> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>>
>> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>>
>> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>>
>> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>>
>> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>>
>
>I *did* present it,
>you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
>
>> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>>
>> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>>
>> now.
>>
>
>I did, you ridiculous clown.
>
>> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>>
>> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>>
>> OBVIOUSLY don't.
>
>You wouldn't know because you refuse to click the link. It's not such a long article, you know.
worth presenting to you, letting me know there's nothing worth reading there.
>> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>>
>> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>>
>> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>>
>> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>>
>> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>>
>> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>>
>> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>>
>> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>>
>> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>>
>> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>>
>> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>>
>> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>>
>> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>>
>> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
>
>Why do you want to make up stories
fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>about what my links do and don't say instead of clicking them and finding out for yourself?
any of them that supports the idea that life is of negative value for the
animals in question. YOU HAVE ALREADY LET ME KNOW that there's nothing at any of
them even you feel supports what you want people to believe.
George Plimpton
May 6, 2013, 6:18:53 PM5/6/13
to
On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
*defend* your opinion.
>>> I'm
>>>
>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>
>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>
>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>
>>> they claim to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What do you think might be better?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Did you have a look at this article?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>
>>
>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>
> There's nothing there worth reading
You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>> And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> could you do? Support it?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>>
>>> respectable thing to do.
>>
>> But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
>
> It's obvious to those of us who
No, stating "it's obvious" won't do, Fuckwit.
>> And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>
> I don't believe you.
He did.
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>
>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>
> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>
>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>
> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
*defend* your opinion.
>>> I'm
>>>
>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>
>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>
>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>
>>> they claim to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What do you think might be better?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Did you have a look at this article?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>
>>
>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>
> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>> And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> could you do? Support it?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>>
>>> respectable thing to do.
>>
>> But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
>
> It's obvious to those of us who
>> And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>
> I don't believe you.
dh
May 8, 2013, 1:11:23 PM5/8/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>*defend* your opinion.
Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider it worse than doing
nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>I can keep moving on, but
>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>as you're stuck on that.
>>
something there that supports what he wants people to believe then YOU present
it since he can't find anything, Goo. Go:
>>>> >> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> could you do? Support it?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>>>
>>>> respectable thing to do.
>>>
>>>But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
>>
I sure do, Goo.
>>>And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>>
Wussile excuses is all he "did" Goob.
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
. . .
>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>
>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>
>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>
>>>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>
>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>
>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>
>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>
>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>
>No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
That's an obvious lie Goob.
>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>*defend* your opinion.
nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>I can keep moving on, but
>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>as you're stuck on that.
>>
>>>> I'm
>>>>
>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>
>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>
>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>
>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>
>>>>
>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>
>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>
>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>
>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>
>> There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>know of anything yourself.
>
>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>know of anything yourself.
>
>You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
He let me know and proved it repeatedly Goob. But if you think there's
something there that supports what he wants people to believe then YOU present
it since he can't find anything, Goo. Go:
>>>> >> >And there may be other more important goals that I could pursue with my limited resources, like reducing suffering.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> You're certainly refusing to support cage free egg production, but what else
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> >> could you do? Support it?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is a more
>>>>
>>>> respectable thing to do.
>>>
>>>But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable thing to do.
>>
>> It's obvious to those of us who favor the cage free method and are opposed
>>to the cage method enough to buy cage free eggs and support cage free of cage
>>production. That doesn't include you so you're not mentally able to appreciate
>>it, but since I am mentally able I do.
>
>No
>>to the cage method enough to buy cage free eggs and support cage free of cage
>>production. That doesn't include you so you're not mentally able to appreciate
>>it, but since I am mentally able I do.
>
I sure do, Goo.
>>>And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>>
>> I don't believe you. I think you provided a link that has nothing even you
>>think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
>>why you don't.
>
>He did.
>>think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
>>why you don't.
>
Wussile excuses is all he "did" Goob.
George Plimpton
May 8, 2013, 1:25:51 PM5/8/13
to
On 5/8/2013 10:11 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>> *defend* your opinion.
>
> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
You can't defend your fuckwitted opinion, *Goo*.
>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>
>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>
You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>> I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is
>>>>> a more
>>>>>
>>>>> respectable thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable
>>>> thing to do.
>>>
>>> It's obvious to those of us who
>>
You don't.
>>>> And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. I think you provided a link that has nothing even you
>>> think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
>>> why you don't.
>>
>> He did.
>
> Wussile
You.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>
>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>
>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>
>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>
>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>
>> No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>
>
> That's an obvious lie
Not a lie.
>>
>
> That's an obvious lie
>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>> *defend* your opinion.
>
> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>
>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>
>> You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>
> He let me know and
You didn't read it, *Goo*. You don't know what it says.
>
> He let me know and
You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>> I could refrain from buying eggs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you could support the cage free method as I do, and feel is
>>>>> a more
>>>>>
>>>>> respectable thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> But you have given no good reason *why* it is a more respectable
>>>> thing to do.
>>>
>>> It's obvious to those of us who
>>
>> No, stating "it's obvious" won't do, Fuckwit.
>
> I sure
>
You don't.
>>>> And I have given you a link to an essay which it would profit you considerably to read, which explains why this belief of yours is ill-founded.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. I think you provided a link that has nothing even you
>>> think is worth reading or you would present it instead of making wussile excuses
>>> why you don't.
>>
>> He did.
>
> Wussile
dh
May 9, 2013, 6:42:55 PM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>
>You didn't read it
He let me know there we no reason to and proved it repeatedly Goob. You have
too by now, Goo.
>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>. . .
>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>
>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>
>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>
>>>No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>
>> That's an obvious lie Goob.
>>
>>
>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>
>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>
>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider it worse than doing
>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>
>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>
>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>
>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>
>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>
>>>You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>
>> He let me know and proved it repeatedly Goob.
>>
>
>You didn't read it
He let me know there we no reason to and proved it repeatedly Goob. You have
too by now, Goo.
George Plimpton
May 9, 2013, 10:32:31 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/2013 3:42 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 5/8/2013 10:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would
>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>
>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would
>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>
>>>> No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an obvious lie
>>
>> Not a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an obvious lie
>>
>>
>>
>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>
>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>
>>
>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>
>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>
>> You can't defend your fuckwitted opinion, *Goo*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>
>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>
>>> He let me know and
>>
>>>
>>> He let me know and
>>
>> You didn't read it, *Goo*. You don't know what it says.
>>
>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>
>>
>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>
> He let me know there we no reason to and
No. You didn't read it because you're scared.
Rupert
May 10, 2013, 10:17:21 AM5/10/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:18:01 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Union not worth living?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>
> >>
>
> >> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>
> >> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>
> >> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>
> >> >> that is?
>
> >>
>
> >> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>
> >>
>
> >> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>
> >>
>
> >> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>
> >>
>
> >> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>
> >>
>
> >> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I *did* present it,
>
>
>
> Try presenting some way in which I could try to pretend to believe you. Go:
>
>
I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> > There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Union not worth living?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >There are some relevant considerations here:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>
> >>
>
> >> >> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>
> >> >> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>
> >> >> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>
> >> >> that is?
>
> >>
>
> >> >It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>
> >>
>
> >> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>
> >>
>
> >> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>
> >>
>
> >> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>
> >>
>
> >> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I *did* present it,
>
>
>
> Try presenting some way in which I could try to pretend to believe you. Go:
>
>
>
> >you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
>
> >
>
> >> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>
> >>
>
> >> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>
> >>
>
> >> now.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I did, you ridiculous clown.
>
> >
>
> >> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>
> >>
>
> >> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>
> >>
>
> >> OBVIOUSLY don't.
>
> >
>
> >You wouldn't know because you refuse to click the link. It's not such a long article, you know.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is that none of it seems
>
> worth presenting to you, letting me know there's nothing worth reading there.
>
>
>
> >> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>
> >>
>
> >> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>
> >>
>
> >> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>
> >>
>
> >> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>
> >>
>
> >> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>
> >>
>
> >> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>
> >>
>
> >> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>
> >>
>
> >> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>
> >>
>
> >> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>
> >>
>
> >> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>
> >>
>
> >> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>
> >>
>
> >> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>
> >>
>
> >> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>
> >>
>
> >> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
>
> >
>
> >Why do you want to make up stories
>
>
>
> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>
> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>
> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>
>
>
> >about what my links do and don't say instead of clicking them and finding out for yourself?
>
>
>
> You've already let me know by not being able to present a single thing from
>
> any of them that supports the idea that life is of negative value for the
>
> animals in question. YOU HAVE ALREADY LET ME KNOW that there's nothing at any of
>
> them even you feel supports what you want people to believe.
dh
May 13, 2013, 8:34:51 PM5/13/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
think you're trying to argue.
>> >you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> now.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I did, you ridiculous clown.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> OBVIOUSLY don't.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You wouldn't know because you refuse to click the link. It's not such a long article, you know.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is that none of it seems
>>
>> worth presenting to you, letting me know there's nothing worth reading there.
>>
>
>
>You're an idiot.
You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
idiotic thing to do.
>> >> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why do you want to make up stories
>>
>>
>>
>> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>
>That's false, actually,
No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
false.
>but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
Goo and your nephew "Dutch" sure do, but just as you can't present anything
you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
and you are consistent in that.
>> >about what my links do and don't say instead of clicking them and finding out for yourself?
>>
>>
>>
>> You've already let me know by not being able to present a single thing from
>>
>> any of them that supports the idea that life is of negative value for the
>>
>> animals in question. YOU HAVE ALREADY LET ME KNOW that there's nothing at any of
>>
>> them even you feel supports what you want people to believe.
>
>I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
YOU have made it clear there's nothing at that link, if it's a link at all,
which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>It's really not my problem.
You've been caught and exposed trying to get away with a dishonest trick,
and that is the position you're in whether it's a "problem" to you or not.
you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
think you're trying to argue.
>> >you pitiful moron. All you have to do is click the link and read the information. I can't force you to do it at gunpoint.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >There is no good reason why you can't simply read it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There is no "it". If there were, you would have presented "it" or "them" by
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> now.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I did, you ridiculous clown.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >You are just trying to waste my time.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're trying to get me to believe you have something worthwhile when you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> OBVIOUSLY don't.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You wouldn't know because you refuse to click the link. It's not such a long article, you know.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is that none of it seems
>>
>> worth presenting to you, letting me know there's nothing worth reading there.
>>
>
>
>You're an idiot.
you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
idiotic thing to do.
>> >> This is similar to the trick you and the Goober have tried to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> play trying to pretend that Goo has explained what he wants people to think
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> prevents it from being to their advantage that they are alive. Niether of you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> have ever done it and never will be able to do it, yet both of you would like
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> people to believe it has been done numerous times. But! Neither of you can ever
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> present an example of it being done. Similarly you can't present anything worth
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> taking into consideration from any of your websites because there's nothing
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> there. You want us to pretend there is, but I'm not going to try to pretend
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> with you unless you present whatever it is you want me to think you're trying to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> talk about. You won't even say what kind of deaths in your favorite tofu
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> estimate, probably because it's not even mentioned. It probably doesn't say
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> where either, much less what the surrounding area is like. You people have
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nothing....nothing but a speach by an imaginary pig, and that's just a bunch of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> bullshit too, no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why do you want to make up stories
>>
>>
>>
>> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>
>That's false, actually,
false.
>but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
and you are consistent in that.
>> >about what my links do and don't say instead of clicking them and finding out for yourself?
>>
>>
>>
>> You've already let me know by not being able to present a single thing from
>>
>> any of them that supports the idea that life is of negative value for the
>>
>> animals in question. YOU HAVE ALREADY LET ME KNOW that there's nothing at any of
>>
>> them even you feel supports what you want people to believe.
>
>I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>It's really not my problem.
and that is the position you're in whether it's a "problem" to you or not.
dh
May 13, 2013, 8:35:55 PM5/13/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
You sure did Goo.
>You didn't read it because you're scared.
You obviously don't believe that Goober because if there was anything there
you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>
>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>
>>>> That's an obvious lie Goob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>
>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider it worse than doing
>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>
>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>
>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>
>>>> He let me know and proved it repeatedly Goob.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't read it
>>
>>>You didn't read it
>>
>> He let me know there we no reason to and proved it repeatedly Goob. You have
>>too by now, Goo.
>
>No.
>>too by now, Goo.
>
You sure did Goo.
>You didn't read it because you're scared.
you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
George Plimpton
May 14, 2013, 1:19:11 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/2013 5:35 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>
> You obviously don't believe that because
I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
scared. You're scared to death.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 3:42 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/8/2013 10:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate
>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 5/9/2013 3:42 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/8/2013 10:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate
>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would
>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would
>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>
>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>
>>>> You can't defend your fuckwitted opinion, *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the
>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>
>>>> You didn't read it, *Goo*. You don't know what it says.
>>>>
>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>
>>> He let me know there we no reason to and
>>
>> No. You didn't read it because you're scared.
>>
>
> You obviously don't believe that because
I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
scared. You're scared to death.
George Plimpton
May 14, 2013, 1:19:11 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/2013 5:34 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
a serious participant. Yes.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:18:01 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:29:47 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Union not worth living?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some relevant considerations here:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>>>
>>>>>>> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>>>
>>>>>>> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>>>
>>>>>>> that is?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I *did* present it,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Try presenting some way in which I could try to pretend to believe you. Go:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I
It's a link. You didn't read the material because you're a liar and not
>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There would be some dairy cattle who have lives that are worth living, but I doubt that that would be the usual situation in the European Union.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think makes the lives of most dairy cows in the European
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Union not worth living?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some relevant considerations here:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If there are any you feel are worth presenting then go ahead and present
>>>
>>>>>>> them. If/When you don't I'll know it wouldn't be worth my time since there's
>>>
>>>>>>> nothing there you feel is worth presenting. Can't you see how easily obvious
>>>
>>>>>>> that is?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's not obvious at all. It is a waste of my time to copy and paste stuff from the link.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> LOL! If it's a waste of you time to present it then it would be a MUCH
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> bigger waste of time for me to go try to figure out what you MIGHT present if
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> you were to present anything. OBVIOUSLY if it's not worth presenting to you, it
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> damn sure wouldn't be worth trying to find for me especially after you telling
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> me there's nothing there you think is worth presenting.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I *did* present it,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Try presenting some way in which I could try to pretend to believe you. Go:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I
a serious participant. Yes.
Rupert
May 14, 2013, 2:09:42 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
>
>
> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> think you're trying to argue.
>
I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems. I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article, but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
>
>
> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> think you're trying to argue.
>
> >You're an idiot.
>
>
>
> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>
> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>
> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>
> idiotic thing to do.
>
> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>
> >>
>
> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>
> >>
>
> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That's false, actually,
>
>
>
> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>
> false.
>
>
>
> >but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
>
>
>
> Goo and your nephew "Dutch" sure do, but just as you can't present anything
>
> you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
>
> and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
>
> helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
>
> and you are consistent in that.
>
> >I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
>
>
>
> YOU have made it clear there's nothing at that link, if it's a link at all,
>
> which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>
>
>
> >It's really not my problem.
>
>
>
> You've been caught and exposed trying to get away with a dishonest trick,
>
> and that is the position you're in whether it's a "problem" to you or not.
dh
May 16, 2013, 6:13:23 PM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
can't you comprehend what that term means?
>I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
excuses about why you have not.
>but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>
>> >You're an idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>
>What trick?
Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
is really there yourself.
>Posting a link to some information?
>
>> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false, actually,
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>>
>> false.
>>
>
>People of normal intelligence who read Salt's essay will come to the conclusion that it is false. The evidence is in Salt's essay.
Present what you want people to think is an example. Go:
>> >but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Goo and your nephew "Dutch" sure do, but just as you can't present anything
>>
>> you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
>>
>> and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
>>
>> helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
>>
>> and you are consistent in that.
>>
>
>Why is Dutch my nephew?
Goo's your brother and "Dutch" is his boy.
>> >I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> YOU have made it clear there's nothing at that link, if it's a link at all,
>>
>> which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>
>I am very sorry that you are so extraordinarily stupid.
I'm sorry you can't attempt to back up what you want people to believe.
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>>
>>
>> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>
>I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>>
>>
>> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>
>I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
can't you comprehend what that term means?
>I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
excuses about why you have not.
>but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>
>> >You're an idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>
>What trick?
is really there yourself.
>Posting a link to some information?
>
>> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false, actually,
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>>
>> false.
>>
>
>People of normal intelligence who read Salt's essay will come to the conclusion that it is false. The evidence is in Salt's essay.
>> >but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Goo and your nephew "Dutch" sure do, but just as you can't present anything
>>
>> you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
>>
>> and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
>>
>> helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
>>
>> and you are consistent in that.
>>
>
>Why is Dutch my nephew?
>> >I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> YOU have made it clear there's nothing at that link, if it's a link at all,
>>
>> which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>
>I am very sorry that you are so extraordinarily stupid.
dh
May 16, 2013, 6:14:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:35:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
Present it now Goo. Go:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:35:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>>>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an obvious lie Goob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider it worse than doing
>>>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
>>>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He let me know and proved it repeatedly Goob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read it
>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read it
>>>>
>>>> He let me know there we no reason to and proved it repeatedly Goob. You have
>>>>too by now, Goo.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> You sure did Goo.
>>
>>>>too by now, Goo.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> You sure did Goo.
>>
>>>You didn't read it because you're scared.
>>
>>
>> You obviously don't believe that Goober because if there was anything there
>>you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
>>didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
>>Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
>>something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
>
>I do believe it
>>you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
>>didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
>>Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
>>something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
>
Present it now Goo. Go:
George Plimpton
May 16, 2013, 7:38:04 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
Go to the archive, *Goo*. IT's there.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 5/13/2013 10:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 5:35 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:42 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate
>>>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 5/13/2013 5:35 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:42 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 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 5/6/2013 3:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:14 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate
>>>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the
>>>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't defend your fuckwitted opinion, *Goo*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't read it, *Goo*. You don't know what it says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>>>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your stupidity.
>>>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>
>>>>> He let me know there we no reason to and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. You didn't read it because you're scared.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't believe that because
>>
>> I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
>> scared. You're scared to death.
>
> Present it
>>>
>>> You obviously don't believe that because
>>
>> I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
>> scared. You're scared to death.
>
Go to the archive, *Goo*. IT's there.
Rupert
May 16, 2013, 11:39:47 PM5/16/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> >>
>
> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> >>
>
> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> >>
>
> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> >>
>
> >> think you're trying to argue.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>
>
>
> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>
> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>
My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> >>
>
> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> >>
>
> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> >>
>
> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> >>
>
> >> think you're trying to argue.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>
>
>
> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>
> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>
The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>
>
> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>
>
>
> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>
> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>
> excuses about why you have not.
>
>
>
> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>
> >
>
> >> >You're an idiot.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>
> >>
>
> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>
> >>
>
> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>
> >>
>
> >> idiotic thing to do.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What trick?
>
>
>
> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>
> is really there yourself.
>
>
>
> >Posting a link to some information?
>
> >
>
> >> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >That's false, actually,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>
> >>
>
> >> false.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >People of normal intelligence who read Salt's essay will come to the conclusion that it is false. The evidence is in Salt's essay.
>
>
>
> Present what you want people to think is an example. Go:
>
>
>
> >> >but I don't care about Salt's talking pig anyway.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Goo and your nephew "Dutch" sure do, but just as you can't present anything
>
> >>
>
> >> you think helps support your position from the pages you provide links to, Goo
>
> >>
>
> >> and his boy can't present a single quote from the incredible pig that they think
>
> >>
>
> >> helps support their idiotic seeming position either. You people have nothing,
>
> >>
>
> >> and you are consistent in that.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why is Dutch my nephew?
>
>
>
> Goo's your brother and "Dutch" is his boy.
>
>
>
> >> >I've given you a link which discusses welfare issues for dairy cows. You refuse to read it for some reason.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> YOU have made it clear there's nothing at that link, if it's a link at all,
>
> >>
>
> >> which supports whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I am very sorry that you are so extraordinarily stupid.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry you can't attempt to back up what you want people to believe.
dh
May 20, 2013, 7:15:44 PM5/20/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:04 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:14:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:35:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
Show me where, Goo.
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:14:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:35:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:31 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:42:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:25:51 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 15:18:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Refraining from buying battery cage eggs and donating money to organizations that encourage other people to do the same is not doing nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's doing less that nothing it you're sending it to an eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert the opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing. But I've given it
>>>>>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>more thought than you ever will, so you're stuck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie Goob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>>>*defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider it worse than doing
>>>>>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>nothing to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals, Goober. But if you
>>>>>>>>think you can, try to explain how you want people to think that contributing to
>>>>>>>>eliminationist organizations is superior to buying cage free eggs Goo. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I can keep moving on, but
>>>>>>>>>>you're stuck clinging to elimination and you can't get anywhere farther as long
>>>>>>>>>>as you're stuck on that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in several things my opponents aren't able to even attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain, for example. Not that I believe it would change my pov, but in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to understand HOW they can believe some of the absurd seeming things
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> they claim to believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >Even if I thought that some laying hens had lives that are worth living, buying their eggs would not necessarily be the most efficient way by means of which I could increase the number of years of life worth living that are lived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> What do you think might be better?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Did you have a look at this article?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.qalys.org/animal-welfare.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What have I told you about things like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into the actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading IN YOUR OPINION or you would have
>>>>>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>presented it. You presented what you thought was "best" from the broiler page
>>>>>>>>>>and not only was it not in regards to broiler chickens, but it didn't even make
>>>>>>>>>>the lives of the birds it was related to of negative value imo. Not even close,
>>>>>>>>>>in fact, and that was the "best" you could find on that page. You can't find
>>>>>>>>>>anything even that piss poor on any of the other pages, so I would be stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>go look for something worth reading when you've proven repeatedly that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>know of anything yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He let me know and proved it repeatedly Goob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You didn't read it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You didn't read it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He let me know there we no reason to and proved it repeatedly Goob. You have
>>>>>>too by now, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> You sure did Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>>too by now, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> You sure did Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read it because you're scared.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't believe that Goober because if there was anything there
>>>>you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
>>>>didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
>>>>Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
>>>>something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>I do believe it
>>
>> Present it now Goo. Go:
>
>Go
>>>>you thought I would not want to read you would have presented it by now. But you
>>>>didn't present anything meaning you don't believe there's anything there just as
>>>>Rupert doesn't believe there's anything there Goob. If you think there's
>>>>something there I should be scared of then present it, Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>I do believe it
>>
>> Present it now Goo. Go:
>
Show me where, Goo.
dh
May 20, 2013, 7:16:00 PM5/20/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
otherwise.
>The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>
>>
>>
>> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>>
>>
>>
>> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>>
>> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>>
>> excuses about why you have not.
>>
>
>I *have* presented it, you silly silly man.
You presented something that does NOT make life of negative value for the
parents of broiler chickens imo. You haven't even done that little in regards to
broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What trick?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>>
>> is really there yourself.
>>
>
>I do believe something is there.
Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
have you figured out.
>The only way you can find out for yourself is to click the link. If you choose not to, then what care I?
>
>>
>>
>> >Posting a link to some information?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >That's false, actually,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> false.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >People of normal intelligence who read Salt's essay will come to the conclusion that it is false. The evidence is in Salt's essay.
>>
>>
>>
>> Present what you want people to think is an example. Go:
>>
>
>I don't care about the issue enough to go and find Salt's essay and present examples.
Try digging them out of this. Go:
"I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must say, "inasmuch as I ate
a portion of his predecessor; and now I will be a benefactor to some yet
unborn Pig, by eating a portion of this one." This, then, is the benign
attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply
of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it
were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and
sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect
it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me, thou hast
afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee,
that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though
thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not
for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed
and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
wrote:
>On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>>
>> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>>
>
>My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
As yet I've no reason to guess that myself, but in contrast would guess
>On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>>
>> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>>
>
>My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
otherwise.
>The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>
>>
>>
>> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>>
>>
>>
>> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>>
>> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>>
>> excuses about why you have not.
>>
>
>I *have* presented it, you silly silly man.
parents of broiler chickens imo. You haven't even done that little in regards to
broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What trick?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>>
>> is really there yourself.
>>
>
>I do believe something is there.
something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
have you figured out.
>The only way you can find out for yourself is to click the link. If you choose not to, then what care I?
>
>>
>>
>> >Posting a link to some information?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> I pointed out a fact about Salt's fantasy about a talking pig. Salt's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> fantasy is no better than Charlotte's Web or Chicken Run at opposing considering
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> lives of positive value for livestock animals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >That's false, actually,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No it's not, and again you can't provide any evidence at all that it is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> false.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >People of normal intelligence who read Salt's essay will come to the conclusion that it is false. The evidence is in Salt's essay.
>>
>>
>>
>> Present what you want people to think is an example. Go:
>>
>
>I don't care about the issue enough to go and find Salt's essay and present examples.
"I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must say, "inasmuch as I ate
a portion of his predecessor; and now I will be a benefactor to some yet
unborn Pig, by eating a portion of this one." This, then, is the benign
attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply
of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it
were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and
sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect
it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me, thou hast
afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee,
that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though
thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not
for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed
and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
Rupert
May 21, 2013, 12:13:51 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:16:00 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> think you're trying to argue.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>
> >>
>
> >> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
>
>
>
> As yet I've no reason to guess that myself, but in contrast would guess
>
> otherwise.
>
Well, you refuse to read the information I give you which I think is relevant to the matter.
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> think you're trying to argue.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>
> >>
>
> >> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
>
>
>
> As yet I've no reason to guess that myself, but in contrast would guess
>
> otherwise.
>
>
>
> >The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>
> >>
>
> >> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>
> >>
>
> >> excuses about why you have not.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I *have* presented it, you silly silly man.
>
>
>
> You presented something that does NOT make life of negative value for the
>
> parents of broiler chickens imo.
> You haven't even done that little in regards to
>
> broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>
>
>
> >> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> idiotic thing to do.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >What trick?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>
> >>
>
> >> is really there yourself.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I do believe something is there.
>
>
>
> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
>
> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
>
> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
>
> have you figured out.
>
George Plimpton
May 21, 2013, 12:51:53 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/2013 4:15 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>
> Show me where
You know where, *Goo*.
*Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - concedes yet again that he's just
fucking around.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2013 12:33:27 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since,
>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why, pray tell, should I value your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were interested in what your opponent thinks you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, why should I be interested in that if you simply assert
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion and make no serious attempt to defend it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because I've given it more thought than you for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you haven't. You haven't given it a bit of thought.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's irrelevant whether you have or haven't. You still can't
>>>>>>>>>> *defend* your opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since I'm in favor of decent AW I can only consider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't defend your fuckwitted opinion, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That for some stupid reason you refuse to read any links I give
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I waste time copying and pasting sections from them into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual post itself. Your loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing there worth reading
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't know - you haven't read it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He let me know and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't read it, *Goo*. You don't know what it says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your
>>>>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're stupid, and you work frantically at preserving your
>>>>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>>>>> Why is that, *Goo*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He let me know there we no reason to and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You didn't read it because you're scared.
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't believe that because
>>>>
>>>> I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
>>>> scared. You're scared to death.
>>>
>>> Present it
>>
>> Go to the archive, *Goo*. It's there.
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't believe that because
>>>>
>>>> I do believe it, *Goo*. Everyone believes it - because it's so. Yu're
>>>> scared. You're scared to death.
>>>
>>> Present it
>>
>
> Show me where
You know where, *Goo*.
*Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - concedes yet again that he's just
fucking around.
dh
May 23, 2013, 5:13:52 PM5/23/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>you which I think is relevant to the matter.
>
>>
>>
>> >The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> excuses about why you have not.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I *have* presented it, you silly silly man.
>>
>>
>>
>> You presented something that does NOT make life of negative value for the
>>
>> parents of broiler chickens imo.
>
>So what's the foundation for that opinion?
>
>> You haven't even done that little in regards to
>>
>> broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>>
>
>Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
Present that discussion now. Go:
>which you refused to read.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >What trick?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is really there yourself.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I do believe something is there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
>>
>> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
>>
>> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
>>
>> have you figured out.
>>
>
>I have presented it,
Present whatever you think it is again now. Go:
Try presenting whatever you think they are now. Go:
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:16:00 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
>>
>>
>>
>> As yet I've no reason to guess that myself, but in contrast would guess
>>
>> otherwise.
>>
>
>Well, you refuse to read the information I give
Give me the information now. Go:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:16:00 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:13:23 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:34:51 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I don't understand what you're arguing about here. You agree that I posted the link?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You posted something that may be a link or may not. What I do know because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you have proven it is that there's nothing at that or any other link you're
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> aware of that supports whatever it is you think you're trying to argue. You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> prove that by being unable to present anything that supports whatever it is you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> think you're trying to argue.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I'm trying to argue that dairy cattle in the European Union suffer from serious welfare problems.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Like what do YOU think is enough to make life of negative value for them? Or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> can't you comprehend what that term means?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >My best guess would be that, on the whole, the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are not worth living.
>>
>>
>>
>> As yet I've no reason to guess that myself, but in contrast would guess
>>
>> otherwise.
>>
>
>Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>you which I think is relevant to the matter.
>
>>
>>
>> >The considerations which lead me to believe this are given in the article at the end of the link.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I presented a link to some information that supports that conclusion. I am not "unable" to copy and paste information from the article,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're apparently unable to present anything that YOU believe supports what
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you want people to believe or you'd have done it instead of making wussile
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> excuses about why you have not.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I *have* presented it, you silly silly man.
>>
>>
>>
>> You presented something that does NOT make life of negative value for the
>>
>> parents of broiler chickens imo.
>
>So what's the foundation for that opinion?
>
>> You haven't even done that little in regards to
>>
>> broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>>
>
>Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>which you refused to read.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >but I do not see the point in doing so. If you are interested, why don't you just click the link and read the article? And if you are not interested, what care I?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You're a more stupid idiot for trying this trick that I didn't fall for, let
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you know I didn't fall for...LOL...but even after I LET YOU KNOW I'm not falling
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> for it you're STILL trying to get away with it. LOL...now THAT is a stupid
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> idiotic thing to do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >What trick?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Hoping I'll be fooled into thinking I found something that you don't believe
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is really there yourself.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I do believe something is there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
>>
>> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
>>
>> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
>>
>> have you figured out.
>>
>
>I have presented it,
Rupert
May 24, 2013, 5:17:12 AM5/24/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
>
>
> Give me the information now. Go:
>
No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
>
>
> Give me the information now. Go:
>
> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
>
>
> Present that discussion now. Go:
>
> >> >I do believe something is there.
>
> >> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
> >> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
> >> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
> >> have you figured out.
>
> >I have presented it,
>
>
>
> Present whatever you think it is again now. Go:
>
> >> Try digging them out of this. Go:
>
> >> "I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must say, "inasmuch as I ate
> >> a portion of his predecessor; and now I will be a benefactor to some yet
> >> unborn Pig, by eating a portion of this one." This, then, is the benign
> >> attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply
> >> of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it
> >> were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and
> >> sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect
> >> it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me, thou hast
> >> afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee,
> >> that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
> >> considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
> >> If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though
> >> thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not
> >> for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed
> >> and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
>
> >Well, it seems to me the pig is making some pretty reasonable points there.
>
> Try presenting whatever you think they are now. Go:
George Plimpton
May 24, 2013, 3:51:10 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 2:13 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
it. Go read it now. Go:
>>>
>>> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
>>>
>>> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
>>>
>>> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
>>>
>>> have you figured out.
>>>
>>
>> I have presented it,you fool.
>>>
>>> Try digging them out of this. Go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must say, "inasmuch as I ate
>>>
>>> a portion of his predecessor; and now I will be a benefactor to some yet
>>>
>>> unborn Pig, by eating a portion of this one."
The Philosopher is in no way a "benefactor" to any pig. The LoL is
discredited.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>> You haven't even done that little in regards to
>>>
>>> broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> Present that discussion now.
He already gave you the link, Fuckwit. Stop fucking around and go read
>>>
>>> broilers themselves or any other type(s) of creature(s) on the planet, afaik.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> Present that discussion now.
it. Go read it now. Go:
>>>
>>> Probably not. It's stupid either way though. I you do believe there's
>>>
>>> something there you're stupid for not presenting it, and of course if you don't
>>>
>>> you're stupid for continuing to insist there is even after I've let you know I
>>>
>>> have you figured out.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Try digging them out of this. Go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must say, "inasmuch as I ate
>>>
>>> a portion of his predecessor; and now I will be a benefactor to some yet
>>>
>>> unborn Pig, by eating a portion of this one."
discredited.
dh
May 28, 2013, 8:09:48 PM5/28/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
That's because you can't think realistically about human influence on
animals. In order for Salt's fantasy to have anything to do with reality pigs
would have to be aware that they will be killed and eaten by humans. They don't,
so Salt's fantasy is no better than "Chicken Run" or "Charlotte's Web".
wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>>
>>
>> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>
>No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
>> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>>
>>
>> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>
>No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
"It" is not there.
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>>
>>
>> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>
>No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
>> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>>
>>
>> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>
>No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
animals. In order for Salt's fantasy to have anything to do with reality pigs
would have to be aware that they will be killed and eaten by humans. They don't,
so Salt's fantasy is no better than "Chicken Run" or "Charlotte's Web".
Rupert
May 28, 2013, 10:59:16 PM5/28/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
> >
>
> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>
>
>
> "It" is not there.
>
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
> >
>
> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>
>
>
> "It" is not there.
>
Now read it, this time.
dh
May 30, 2013, 6:31:49 PM5/30/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
Yes it sure is.
>The points that the pig is making stand regardless of whether or not pigs are actually aware in advance that they will be killed.
Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
actual pigs that do exist.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not there.
>>
>
>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
>Now read it, this time.
"It" is not there.
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not there.
>>
>
>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
>Now read it, this time.
>The points that the pig is making stand regardless of whether or not pigs are actually aware in advance that they will be killed.
pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
actual pigs that do exist.
Rupert
May 30, 2013, 9:51:20 PM5/30/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:31:49 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "It" is not there.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
> >
>
> >Now read it, this time.
>
>
>
> "It" is not there.
>
Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "It" is not there.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
> >
>
> >Now read it, this time.
>
>
>
> "It" is not there.
>
>
>
> >The points that the pig is making stand regardless of whether or not pigs are actually aware in advance that they will be killed.
>
>
>
> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
>
> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
>
> actual pigs that do exist.
>
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:34:39 PM6/4/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
The fact that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed means pigs
don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed regardless of whatever Salt was
trying to get away with.
>> >The points that the pig is making stand regardless of whether or not pigs are actually aware in advance that they will be killed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
>>
>> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
>>
>> actual pigs that do exist.
>>
>
>Irrelevant.
In contrast to that absurd remark it's extremely significant. It's also
another clear indication that you don't care in general, that you don't care
that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed.
wrote:
>On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:31:49 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> "It" is not there.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Now read it, this time.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not there.
>>
>
>Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
"It" is not in the article.
>On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:31:49 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:09:48 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Well, you refuse to read the information I give
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Give me the information now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, I already posted the link and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again. Go and find it and click on it and read the information, and then tell me why it is that you think that the lives of dairy cattle in the European Union are on the whole worth living.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, I did. I presented you with a detailed discussion of the lives of broiler chickens
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Present that discussion now. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No. I have posted the link many times, and have even copied and pasted from it, and you have always refused to read it. I am not going to waste time posting it again. Find it yourself, or Google for "CIWF welfare of broiler chickens".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> "It" is not there.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Now read it, this time.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not there.
>>
>
>Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed regardless of whatever Salt was
trying to get away with.
>> >The points that the pig is making stand regardless of whether or not pigs are actually aware in advance that they will be killed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
>>
>> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
>>
>> actual pigs that do exist.
>>
>
>Irrelevant.
another clear indication that you don't care in general, that you don't care
that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed.
Rupert
Jun 5, 2013, 4:51:27 AM6/5/13
to
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:39 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
> >> >Now read it, this time.
>
> >> "It" is not there.
>
> >Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
>
>
>
> "It" is not in the article.
>
What is not in the article?
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>
> >> >Now read it, this time.
>
> >> "It" is not there.
>
> >Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
>
>
>
> "It" is not in the article.
>
> >> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
> >> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
> >> actual pigs that do exist.
>
> >Irrelevant.
>
> In contrast to that absurd remark it's extremely significant.
> It's also
>
> another clear indication that you don't care in general, that you don't care
>
> that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed.
>
dh
Jun 6, 2013, 6:02:27 PM6/6/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:51:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
of broiler chickens.
Either you've never seen pigs killed or you didn't appreciate what you were
seeing. From my own observations and experiences as well as all of those I've
discussed it with who have seen pigs killed, they do NOT know what's going on
when it happens. We used to kill at least one or two of the pigs the sow I had
in high school had out of each litter when they got up to somewhere over 100
pounds. We killed them in front of their mother and whatever sibblings were
left. None of them ever showed any signs of being afraid or even feeling
anything was wrong at all. They did sniff and lick the blood, and in other
slaughters I've seen pigs drink the blood from the ones killed before them, but
they never show signs of fear. So they don't suffer from it even at the time of
their own slaughter. You don't like that, do you? You have always thought and
still want to believe they suffer horribly from it, don't you?
>During most of its lifespan, the pig has no awareness that it is destined to be slaughtered for food. But this has no bearing on the points that Salt was making.
What worthwhile points do you think it has no bearing on? Why do you think
Salt tried to get away with whatever he was trying to get away with by inventing
an imaginary pig that knows he'll be killed and eaten by humans???
>> >> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
>> >> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
>> >> actual pigs that do exist.
>>
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> In contrast to that absurd remark it's extremely significant.
>
>What's the significance?
If it could reduce the quality of life for actual pigs, and I've no doubt
Salt would love it if it could and did, it would be a LOT different than it is
that it can't. For example if it could, then because of it somehow pigs WOULD
know.
>> It's also
>>
>> another clear indication that you don't care in general, that you don't care
>>
>> that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed.
>>
>
>Of course I care.
If you really do then you should feel glad and to a large extent relieved to
learn that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed, even at the time of
their death. But, I've no doubt there are a number of horrible things you
believe which are not true, but you want to believe they are and refuse to
accept reality about them. Like beef sometimes involving fewer deaths than
soybeans for example. You act like you can somehow believe it has NEVER been the
case, which is...well...I would have understood better than that in grade school
even if we never did discuss that particular aspect. To think it's even possible
a person would have to be ignorant of everything, from my pov.
wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:39 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>>
>> >> >Now read it, this time.
>>
>> >> "It" is not there.
>>
>> >Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not in the article.
>>
>
>What is not in the article?
Anything that makes it seem that life is of negative value to the majority
>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:39 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf
>>
>> >> >Now read it, this time.
>>
>> >> "It" is not there.
>>
>> >Yes, it is. The link works. Click it and read the article.
>>
>>
>>
>> "It" is not in the article.
>>
>
>What is not in the article?
of broiler chickens.
seeing. From my own observations and experiences as well as all of those I've
discussed it with who have seen pigs killed, they do NOT know what's going on
when it happens. We used to kill at least one or two of the pigs the sow I had
in high school had out of each litter when they got up to somewhere over 100
pounds. We killed them in front of their mother and whatever sibblings were
left. None of them ever showed any signs of being afraid or even feeling
anything was wrong at all. They did sniff and lick the blood, and in other
slaughters I've seen pigs drink the blood from the ones killed before them, but
they never show signs of fear. So they don't suffer from it even at the time of
their own slaughter. You don't like that, do you? You have always thought and
still want to believe they suffer horribly from it, don't you?
>During most of its lifespan, the pig has no awareness that it is destined to be slaughtered for food. But this has no bearing on the points that Salt was making.
Salt tried to get away with whatever he was trying to get away with by inventing
an imaginary pig that knows he'll be killed and eaten by humans???
>> >> Since what the pig mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for actual
>> >> pigs that do exist, what he mentioned doesn't reduce the quality of life for
>> >> actual pigs that do exist.
>>
>> >Irrelevant.
>>
>> In contrast to that absurd remark it's extremely significant.
>
>What's the significance?
Salt would love it if it could and did, it would be a LOT different than it is
that it can't. For example if it could, then because of it somehow pigs WOULD
know.
>> It's also
>>
>> another clear indication that you don't care in general, that you don't care
>>
>> that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed.
>>
>
>Of course I care.
learn that pigs don't suffer from knowing they'll be killed, even at the time of
their death. But, I've no doubt there are a number of horrible things you
believe which are not true, but you want to believe they are and refuse to
accept reality about them. Like beef sometimes involving fewer deaths than
soybeans for example. You act like you can somehow believe it has NEVER been the
case, which is...well...I would have understood better than that in grade school
even if we never did discuss that particular aspect. To think it's even possible
a person would have to be ignorant of everything, from my pov.
0 new messages