"consideration" for farm animals' lives - meaningless blabber

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".

It's meaningless - complete nonsense.

[Mr.Smartypants]

You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?

[Dutch]

That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
and demolish them succinctly with logic. The correct metaphor there is
smashing Fuckwit's face in.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Goo has trained his little gooling well.

[Dutch]

Email Goober Fuckwit and talk it over in goober-talk.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/22/2013 1:57 AM, Dutch wrote:
> Douchebag Hamilton mewled:

>> On May 21, 4:11 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>>> Douchebag Hamilton minced:

>>>> On May 21, 11:17 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>
>>>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>>
>>>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>>
>>> That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>>> meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>>> and demolish them succinctly with logic. The correct metaphor there is
>>> smashing Fuckwit's face in.
>>
>>
>> Goo has trained his little gooling well.
>
> Email Goober Fuckwit and talk it over in goober-talk.

Douchebag Hamilton is due for an "over-nighter" [nudge-nudge, wink-wink]
on the houseboat very soon; it can be a little pillow talk for the two
of them.

[Mr.Smartypants]

All you seem to talk about lately is homosexual themes. Is that a sign
you're about to come out of the closet, Goo?

[Rupert]

I prefer heterosexual themes.

[George Plimpton]

Douchebag Hamilton is just making another attempt to play The Queer
Game. It's another failure.

[Dutch]

You wish.

[Rupert]

What's the Queer Game? Is that when everyone starts talking about homosexual behaviour?

[George Plimpton]

The Queer Game is played when someone mocks or denigrates queers, and
then someone else - a queer himself, or a self-styled Great Defender of
Queers - says that the mocker must be a closet queer himself. Calling
someone who mocks or denigrates queers a closet queer is just playing
The Queer Game. There's never any valid reason to think the mocker is a
queer, and in fact playing the game, far from legitimately rising to the
defense of queers, depends on thinking of being queer as an insult.
That's what Douchebag was doing above.

[Rupert]

As far as I can tell, every post in this thread is completely pointless.

[George Plimpton]

Perhaps. Or, perhaps not.

[Rupert]

I'd say you've covered the possibilities there.

[George Plimpton]

I think so, too. I could be mistaken, though; I was one other time as well.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Yeh, that time is known as Goo's Mother of All Self-
Outstupidifications.

[dh]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Mr.Smartypants wrote:

>> On May 21, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>
>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>
>>
>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>
>
>That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>and demolish them succinctly with logic.

I haven't seen Goo do that yet. For a few years I was afraid someone might
do it but after a few years of nobody even coming close I've gotten comfortable
with the idea that no one can since by now it's been well over a decade. But if
Goo has done it I would certainly like to see it. Do you think you know of any
example(s). Be specific or I'll know you're lying again, which seems most likely
for a couple of reasons. One being that that's what you do the vast majority of
the time from my experience with you, and another being that so far I still
believe it can't be done.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On May 21, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>>
>>
>> That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>> meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>> and demolish them succinctly with logic.
>
> I haven't seen Goo do that yet.

The Logic of the Larder was DOA, for the past you've been trying to sell
it anyway using equivocation and lying. You have failed.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/23/2013 2:19 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 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:

>>> On May 21, 11:17 am, George Plimpton - *Goo* Fuckwit Harrison's superior in every way - wrote:
>>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>>
>>
>> That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>> meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>> and demolish them succinctly with logic.
>

> I haven't seen George do that yet.

You've seen me do it and have felt the sting of it non-stop for 14
years, you lying cocksucker.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/23/2013 2:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> For a few years I was afraid someone might
> do it but after a few years of nobody even coming close I've gotten comfortable
> with the idea that no one can since by now it's been well over a decade.

*EVERYONE* who ever took the time to take you on defeated you, *Goo*.
Your entire story was shit from the beginning, and you lost.

Here's a little fact for you, *Goo*. Douchebag Hamilton may come down
and you two may have some sick perverted fun "docking" from time to
time, but Douchebag *disagrees* with everything you say about "animal
rights." You seem to forget that Douchebag is an ardent "ara". You
*would* forget that, *Goo*, because you are the stupidest cocksucking
cracker ever.

[dh]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:51:14 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:19:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> On May 21, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>>>
>>>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>>>meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>>>and demolish them succinctly with logic.
>>

>> I haven't seen Goo do that yet. For a few years I was afraid someone might
>>do it but after a few years of nobody even coming close I've gotten comfortable
>>with the idea that no one can since by now it's been well over a decade. But if
>>Goo has done it I would certainly like to see it. Do you think you know of any
>>example(s). Be specific or I'll know you're lying again, which seems most likely
>>for a couple of reasons. One being that that's what you do the vast majority of
>>the time from my experience with you, and another being that so far I still
>>believe it can't be done.
>

>...[considering when decent AW successfully results in lives of positive value
>for livestock animals] was DOA, for the past you've been trying to sell

>it anyway using equivocation and lying.

We've seen clearly that you can't comprehend the distinction between these 2
different meanings for the word "life":
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

What specifically would you like to pretend I've been lying about, do you
have any clue at all?

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
>> ..the LOL was DOA, for the past you've been trying to sell

>> >it anyway using equivocation and lying.

> We've seen clearly that you can't comprehend the distinction between these 2
> different meanings for the word "life"

I understand the difference perfectly, that's why your equivocating is
so transparent.

In your defense I don't believe you're doing it deliberately, you're
just too stupid to know it.

[George Plimpton]

You're mistaken about that. He *does* know, and he *is* doing it
deliberately. It's because he's a stupid time-wasting troll. He knows
because even a grade school student can understand what's wrong with his
fake argument.

For fourteen years, Fuckwit has been trying to "get" "aras" and "vegans"
in what he wrongly thinks of as some kind of logical trap. There is no
trap. No matter how he tries to word it - failure to give some
undefined "consideration", or "'denying' them of the life they otherwise
would have had", or 'veganism' being "unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live" - it all has been a failure.

Fuckwit simply has no case.

[dh]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:04:40 -0700, Goo wrote:

>For fourteen years, Fuckwit has been trying to "get" "aras" and "vegans"
>in what he wrongly thinks of as some kind of logical trap. There is no
>trap.

They're in their own trap already Goots. They want the animals which already
exist to continue living, meaning they believe lives like that are worth living.
They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from
taking place in the future. That's very stupid Goober, even though your own
faith in elimination prevents you from comprehending how. The main thing though
Goob is that people who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with
their lifestyle instead of nothing, need to understand they can't do that by
being vegans. They can only do that by being conscientious consumers of animal
products, NOT by being vegans, Goo.

[dh]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:51:04 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:52:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:51:14 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:19:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>> On May 21, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> Fuckwit Harrison can't demonstrate any good his fake "consideration"
>>>>>>> does for animals, nor can he show what harm results to animals from
>>>>>>> vegetarians' failure to show this fake "consideration".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's meaningless - complete nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're really on an ankle biting rampage today aren't you Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not ankle-biting, ankle-biting is harping endlessly on
>>>>>meaningless issues. What he does is address his core arguments directly
>>>>>and demolish them succinctly with logic.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen Goo do that yet. For a few years I was afraid someone might
>>>>do it but after a few years of nobody even coming close I've gotten comfortable
>>>>with the idea that no one can since by now it's been well over a decade. But if
>>>>Goo has done it I would certainly like to see it. Do you think you know of any
>>>>example(s). Be specific or I'll know you're lying again, which seems most likely
>>>>for a couple of reasons. One being that that's what you do the vast majority of
>>>>the time from my experience with you, and another being that so far I still
>>>>believe it can't be done.
>>>
>>>...[considering when decent AW successfully results in lives of positive value

>>>for livestock animals] was DOA, for the past you've been trying to sell

>>>it anyway using equivocation and lying.
>>
>> We've seen clearly that you can't comprehend the distinction between these 2

>>different meanings for the word "life":
>>_________________________________________________________
>>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>distinctive quality of animate beings
>>
>>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>up the existence of an individual
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>

>I understand the difference perfectly

Probably not.

>> What specifically would you like to pretend I've been lying about, do you
>>have any clue at all?

. . .

>In your defense I don't believe you're doing it

I don't have anything to lie about, which is why you can't even pretend that
I've been lying. The truth works against you people so very well that there's no
need to lie from my position. In contrast to that, lying is pretty much all you
Goos can afford to do in your position. For examply you're lying about me lying.
You lie, and I point out what you're lying about. It's what we do.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/30/2013 3:36 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 5/29/2013 12:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/28/2013 5:51 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> ..the LOL was DOA, for the past you've been trying to sell
>>>>> >it anyway using equivocation and lying.
>>>
>>>> We've seen clearly that you can't comprehend the distinction
>>>> between these 2
>>>> different meanings for the word "life"
>>>
>>> I understand the difference perfectly, that's why your equivocating is
>>> so transparent.
>>>
>>> In your defense I don't believe you're doing it deliberately, you're
>>> just too stupid to know it.
>>
>> You're mistaken about that. He *does* know, and he *is* doing it
>> deliberately. It's because he's a stupid time-wasting troll. He knows
>> because even a grade school student can understand what's wrong with his
>> fake argument.
>>

>> For fourteen years, Fuckwit has been trying to "get" "aras" and "vegans"
>> in what he wrongly thinks of as some kind of logical trap. There is no

>> trap. No matter how he tries to word it - failure to give some
>> undefined "consideration", or "'denying' them of the life they otherwise
>> would have had", or 'veganism' being "unfair for the animals that
>> *could* get to live" - it all has been a failure.
>>
>> Fuckwit simply has no case.
>

> They're in their own trap already

They're in no trap at all, *Goo* - not on whether or not they should
want livestock animals to live, in any case.

> They want the animals which already exist to continue living,

Of course.

> meaning they believe lives like that are worth living.

Perhaps, but irrelevant. The main thing is, they don't want humans to
kill animals to use them.

> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from
> taking place in the future.

Because they don't want humans to end those lives.

Their position is consistent, if misguided. Your position is jumbled
bullshit.

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:74lfq8901o4khl5nq...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:04:40 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>For fourteen years, Fuckwit has been trying to "get" "aras" and "vegans"
>>in what he wrongly thinks of as some kind of logical trap. There is no
>>trap.
>
> They're in their own trap already Goots.

Not the trap you are attempting to create, that is a silly fantasy of yours.

> They want the animals which already
> exist to continue living, meaning they believe lives like that are worth
> living.

Only if those animals are transferred to some pastoral ideal setting where
they will be allowed to live out their lives and die naturally. They haven't
thought that part out, but it is consistent within their belief system.

> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living
> from
> taking place in the future.

"Preventing lives" is not a moral crime or assailable wrongdoing of any kind
on any level. Its meaningless.

> That's very stupid Goober, even though your own
> faith in elimination prevents you from comprehending how. The main thing
> though
> Goob is that people who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> with
> their lifestyle instead of nothing, need to understand they can't do that
> by
> being vegans. They can only do that by being conscientious consumers of
> animal
> products, NOT by being vegans, Goo.

That's a stupid argument, and also false. If many, many people became vegans
then high capacity factory farming would no longer be financially viable,
and more livestock would likely be raised on smaller farms like Salatin
where living conditions are likely to be much better.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> I don't have anything to lie about,

As I said above, Mr Plimpton and I disagree on this. He says you're
lying, I maintain that your primary problem is sheer bone stupidity.

Underlying the stupidity is a lack of moral fiber which leads to a
basically dishonest and immoral character, but I don't believe you have
the brains to consciously construct elaborate equivocations or any of
the other fallacies you employ. I think they just roll of your keyboard
as naturally as honesty does for others.

[Mr.Smartypants]

You calling someone else dishonest and immoral is hilarious.

[Dutch]

Yeah, well, nobody's perfect, however..

Specific to the topic of this thread, I don't attempt to present the use
of animal products as "consideration". That is as shabby a bit of
sophistry as I can think of, and you should be ashamed for not calling
Harrison out on it, whether or not you have shared enemies.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Really? I've told him a number of times that there is no benefit to
any animal that is farmed for food. Guess you were too busy chewing on
Goo's little one incher to notice.

[dh]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:06:14 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:74lfq8901o4khl5nq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:04:40 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>For fourteen years, Fuckwit has been trying to "get" "aras" and "vegans"
>>>in what he wrongly thinks of as some kind of logical trap. There is no
>>>trap.
>>
>> They're in their own trap already Goots.
>
>Not the trap you are attempting to create, that is a silly fantasy of yours.
>
>> They want the animals which already
>> exist to continue living, meaning they believe lives like that are worth
>> living.
>
>Only if those animals are transferred to some pastoral ideal setting where
>they will be allowed to live out their lives and die naturally.

Who are they imagining should pay for that? No doubt those who insist it
should happen are the people who SHOULD pay for it, but also undoubtedly they
wouldn't even consider attempting to do so. So who do they think should have to
do it, and WHERE exactly do they think the animals should be taken?

>They haven't
>thought that part out, but it is consistent within their belief system.
>
>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living
>> from
>> taking place in the future.
>
>"Preventing lives" is not a moral crime or assailable wrongdoing of any kind
>on any level. Its meaningless.

For people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination, the billions of
lives of positive value are just another very significant aspect to take into
consideration. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering when
decent AW or anything else results in lives of positive value for billions of
livestock animals.

>> That's very stupid Goober, even though your own
>> faith in elimination prevents you from comprehending how. The main thing
>> though
>> Goob is that people who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>> with
>> their lifestyle instead of nothing, need to understand they can't do that
>> by
>> being vegans. They can only do that by being conscientious consumers of
>> animal
>> products, NOT by being vegans, Goo.
>
>That's a stupid argument,

It's another aspect of human influence on animals that ONLY eliminationists
have reason to oppose taking into consideration.

>and also false.

That's a blatant lie.

>If many, many people became vegans
>then high capacity factory farming would no longer be financially viable,
>and more livestock would likely be raised on smaller farms

There's no reason to think smaller farms would somehow automatically be
better for the animals than larger ones.

>like Salatin
>where living conditions are likely to be much better.

LOL....it's amusing to think that causing farms to become smaller and to
struggle harder would cause the animals to be treated much better...LOL...

WHAT exactly do you want people to think that veganism does to help any
livestock animals at all, and HOW do you want people to think it helps them?

[dh]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:33:26 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, dh pointed out:

They think their lives are worth living and also want to prevent them Goob.

>The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>kill animals to use them.

They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals
from having any life at all, Goo.

>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from
>> taking place in the future.
>
>Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>
>Their position is consistent, if misguided.

How do you think it's misguided Goob?

>Your position is jumbled
>bullshit.

I just point out aspects of human influence on animals that you people don't
like to see pointed out because and ONLY because they work against elimination,
Goo.

[dh]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:12:25 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>As I said above, ...[the Goober] and I disagree on this. He says you're

>lying, I maintain that your primary problem is sheer bone stupidity.

I just point out significant aspects of human influence on animals that you
Goos don't like because and ONLY because considering them works AGAINST the
elimination objective.

[Dutch]

I don't believe you. Tell him now.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Dave, this fuckin' imbecile Dutch doesn't believe that I have told you
I don't believe animals raised for food have beneficial lives.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/30/2013 4:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's
wrong, *Goo*. They don't state any thoughts about whether the animals
lives are worth living, *Goo*. You're simply lying about that, as usual.

>> The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>> kill animals to use them.
>
> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals
> from having any life at all

Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives
worth living, *Goo*.

You're simply far too stupid and inept for this, *Goo*.

>>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from
>>> taking place in the future.
>>
>> Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>
>> Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>
> How do you think it's misguided

Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. It's
what I've been saying for 14 years. Learn to read, you stupid fucking
cracker rapist.

>> Your position is jumbled bullshit.
>
> I just point out

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/31/2013 1:12 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> I don't have anything to lie about,
>>

>> As I said above,

Mr Plimpton and I disagree on this. He says you're

>> lying, I maintain that your primary problem is sheer bone stupidity.
>
> I just point out

No.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Tell us what you think you now know about the things you claim can't
be known, Goober.
Better yet, tell us how you think you found this out.

[dh]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Jun 10, 10:21 am, Goo wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/31/2013 1:12 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> >>>   I don't have anything to lie about,
>>
>> >> As I said above,
>>

>>   ...[Goo] and I disagree on this. He says you're

>>
>> >> lying, I maintain that your primary problem is sheer bone stupidity.
>>
>> >      I just point out
>>
>> No.
>
>Tell us what you think you now know about the things you claim can't
>be known, Goober.
> Better yet, tell us how you think you found this out.

Claiming to have found that out is one of Goo's biggest
selfoutstupidifications. He has quite a list by now actually. I wish I'd kept up
with it...

[dh]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:34:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:33:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, dh pointed out:

>> They think their lives are worth living and also want to prevent them Goob.
>

>They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's
>wrong

So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live or die, Goo?

>>>The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>kill animals to use them.
>>
>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals

>>from having any life at all, Goo.

>
>Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives
>worth living

The fact that they want them to continue living means that Goob. How do you
want people to accept it all, Goo?

>>>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from
>>>> taking place in the future.
>>>
>>>Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>
>>>Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>

>> How do you think it's misguided Goob?

>
>Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals

No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans and other animals
Goob. Does that usually persuade them, Goo? And btw Goober humans don't just
contribute to the deaths of animals as all other animals and some humans do.
Most humans deliberately contribute to things which mean life for livestock
animals Goob. Those who don't apparently want to try to grad some credit for
contributing to better lives for the animals they delibarately try to avoid
influencing life for, Goo.

>>>Your position is jumbled
>>>bullshit.
>>

[Mr.Smartypants]

He's always selfoutstupiding. There's no end to it and no way to keep
up with it all. We just pay more attention to the really good ones.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/11/2013 8:50 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 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/30/2013 4:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>

>> They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's

>> wrong, *Goo*. They don't state any thoughts about whether the animals
>> lives are worth living, *Goo*. You're simply lying about that, as usual.
>

> So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live or die

Both, *Goo*. They feel it's wrong for them to exist in the first place,
but if they do exist, *Goo*, they think it's wrong for humans to kill them.

This isn't hard to understand, *Goo*, and in fact, you *do* understand
it but because you're a dishonest shitbag, you're pretending not to
understand it. You understand it, *Goo*.

>>>> The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>> kill animals to use them.
>>>
>>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals
>>> from having any life at all

<chortle> You just write like shit, *Goo*.

>>
>> Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives

>> worth living, *Goo*.
>>
>> You're simply far too stupid and inept for this, *Goo*.
>

> The fact that they want them to continue living means

...that they think it's wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. That's
what it means, *Goo*.



>>>>> They also want to prevent those lives from taking place in the future.

>>>>
>>>> Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>>
>>>> Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>>
>>> How do you think it's misguided
>>

>> Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. It's
>> what I've been saying for 14 years. Learn to read, you stupid fucking
>> cracker rapist.
>

> No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans

I said I don't believe it is morally wrong for humans to kill animals to
consume them, *Goo*. It's a straightforward statement.


>>>> Your position is jumbledbullshit.

[dh]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:50:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:34:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:33:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, dh pointed out:

>>>> They think their lives are worth living and also want to prevent them Goob.
>>>

>>>They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's
>>>wrong
>>

>> So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live or die, Goo?

>
>Both, *Goo*. They feel it's wrong for them to exist in the first place,
>but if they do exist, *Goo*, they think it's wrong for humans to kill them.

What do you want us to think makes people who can't distinguish between
which livestock have decent lives and which don't, and who want to eliminate all
livestock, also authorities on whether they should be killed or not Goob? These
are necessarily the most clueless people about the topic, so why should anyone
accept the beliefs of such people as being somehow supreme, Goo?

>>>>>The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>>>kill animals to use them.
>>>>
>>>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals

>>>>from having any life at all, Goo.

>>>
>>>Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives
>>>worth living
>>

>> The fact that they want them to continue living means that Goob. How do you
>>want people to accept it all, Goo?
>

>...that they think it's wrong for humans to kill animals

They obviously feel those lives are worth living, yet they want to prevent
such lives in the future Goots. So far we've seen no reason to try to accept
such idiocy as being supreme, but if you think you're aware of one then present
it now, Goo. Go:

>>>>>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from

>>>>>> taking place in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>>>

>>>> How do you think it's misguided Goob?

>>>
>>>Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals
>>

>> No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans and other animals
>>Goob.

>
>I said I don't believe it is morally wrong for humans to kill animals

[dh]

That seems about right. Thinking back I remember a thread about the
cowardice of Goo. I did a quick look and found 15 challenges the Goober is
afraid to even attempt. Goo has proven to be afraid to try:

1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
can not experience

2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights

3. providing any opposition at all to "AR"

4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living

5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life

6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
from their elimination objective

7. describe any emotion(s) through language

8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
better lives for food animals.

9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
than another.

10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.

11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
disappointment, if there are any.

12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
to the elimination of domestic animals.

13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.

14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.

15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
from a dog

[George Plimpton]

On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/11/2013 8:50 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 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/30/2013 4:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>

>>>> They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's

>>>> wrong, *Goo*. They don't state any thoughts about whether the animals
>>>> lives are worth living, *Goo*. You're simply lying about that, as
>>>> usual.
>>>

>>> So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live or die
>>

>> Both, *Goo*. They feel it's wrong for them to exist in the first place,
>> but if they do exist, *Goo*, they think it's wrong for humans to kill them.
>>

>> This isn't hard to understand, *Goo*, and in fact, you *do* understand
>> it but because you're a dishonest shitbag, you're pretending not to
>> understand it. You understand it, *Goo*.
>

> What do you want us to think makes people who can't distinguish between
> which livestock have decent lives and which don't,

Write in English, *Goo*.

>>>>>> The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>>>> kill animals to use them.
>>>>>
>>>>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing
>>>>> such animals

>>>>> from having any life at all
>>
>> <chortle> You just write like shit, *Goo*.
>>
>>
>>>>

>>>> Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives

>>>> worth living, *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>> You're simply far too stupid and inept for this, *Goo*.
>>>

>>> The fact that they want them to continue living means
>>

>> ...that they think it's wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. That's
>> what it means, *Goo*.
>

> They obviously feel those lives are worth living

No, *Goo*. That's why they don't want any more livestock to exist, *Goo*.

You can't do it, *Goo*. I'm too smart and too quick for you. Concede
defeat now, *Goo*, because you're defeated.


>>>>>>> They also want to prevent those lives from taking place in the

>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think it's misguided
>>>>

>>>> Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. It's
>>>> what I've been saying for 14 years. Learn to read, you stupid fucking
>>>> cracker rapist.
>>>

>>> No more wrong than it is for
>>

>> I said I don't believe it is morally wrong for humans to kill animals to
>> consume them, *Goo*. It's a straightforward statement.
>

> No more wrong than

I said I don't believe it is morally wrong, *Goo*. It's a
straightforward statement. You're beating a dead horse, *Goo* - wasting
time.

>>>
>>>>>> Your position is jumbledbullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just point out
>>>> No.

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:

>>
>> He's always
>
> That seems

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
"benefit."

>
> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
> can not experience

Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. Envy, pride,
remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal experience.

[Mr.Smartypants]

So a cat can't anticipate a mouse coming out of a mousehole?

[dh]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:40 -0700, Goo maundered helplessly and cluelessly:

>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:30:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:50:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:34:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:33:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>> They think their lives are worth living and also want to prevent them Goob.
>>>>>

>>>>>They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's
>>>>>wrong
>>>>

>>>> So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live or die, Goo?

>>>
>>>Both, *Goo*. They feel it's wrong for them to exist in the first place,
>>>but if they do exist, *Goo*, they think it's wrong for humans to kill them.
>>

>> What do you want us to think makes people who can't distinguish between

>>which livestock have decent lives and which don't, and who want to eliminate all
>>livestock, also authorities on whether they should be killed or not Goob? These
>>are necessarily the most clueless people about the topic, so why should anyone
>>accept the beliefs of such people as being somehow supreme, Goo?
>

>Wr

You've proven that you have no clue what you want people to think you think,
Goo.

>>>>>>>The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>>>>>kill animals to use them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing such animals

>>>>>>from having any life at all, Goo.

>>>>>
>>>>>Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives
>>>>>worth living
>>>>

>>>> The fact that they want them to continue living means that Goob. How do you
>>>>want people to accept it all, Goo?
>>>

>>>...that they think it's wrong for humans to kill animals
>>

>> They obviously feel those lives are worth living,
>
>No

That's a blatantly obvious lie, Goo.

>>yet they want to prevent
>>such lives in the future Goots. So far we've seen no reason to try to accept
>>such idiocy as being supreme, but if you think you're aware of one then present
>>it now, Goo. Go:

. . .

>they don't want any more livestock to exist

HOW do you want people to think that would be ethically supreme, Goo?

>>>>>>>> They also want to prevent those lives they obviously feel are worth living from

>>>>>>>> taking place in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> How do you think it's misguided Goob?

>>>>>
>>>>>Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals
>>>>

>>>> No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans and other animals
>>>>Goob.
>>>

>>>I said I don't believe it is morally wrong for humans to kill animals
>>

>> No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans and other animals
>>Goob.
>

>I said I don't believe it is morally wrong

No more wrong than it is for other animals to kill humans and other animals,
Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:51:51 -0700, Goo wussed:

>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:30:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 11, 9:49 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Jun 10, 10:21 am, Goo wrote:

>>>> >> On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/31/2013 1:12 PM, Dutch wrote:

>>>> >> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>> >> >>>   I don't have anything to lie about,
>>>>
>>>> >> >> As I said above,
>>>>
>>>> >>   ...[Goo] and I disagree on this. He says you're
>>>>
>>>> >> >> lying, I maintain that your primary problem is sheer bone stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> >> >      I just point out
>>>>
>>>> >> No.
>>>>
>>>> >Tell us what you think you now know about the things you claim can't
>>>> >be known, Goober.
>>>> > Better yet, tell us how you think you found this out.
>>>>
>>>>     Claiming to have found that out is one of Goo's biggest
>>>> selfoutstupidifications. He has quite a list by now actually. I wish I'd kept up
>>>> with it...
>>>
>>>He's always selfoutstupiding. There's no end to it and no way to keep
>>>up with it all. We just pay more attention to the really good ones.
>>
>> That seems about right. Thinking back I remember a thread about the
>>cowardice of Goo. I did a quick look and found 15 challenges the Goober is
>>afraid to even attempt. Goo has proven to be afraid to try:
>>

>>1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>> can not experience
>
>Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. Envy, pride,
>remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal experience.

For one thing there's no reason to believe they can't, Goots. For another
there is reason to believe they can Goob. And for another there's no reason to
feel that one emotion is more complex than another, Goo.

[dh]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:06:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 4:51�pm, the Goober wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 PM, dh quoted the Goober:

>>
>> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>
>> >> He's always
>>
>> > � � �That seems
>>
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
>> livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
>> "benefit."
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>> > � � �can not experience
>>
>> Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. �Envy, pride,
>> remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal experience.
>
>
>So a cat can't anticipate a mouse coming out of a mousehole?

Could Goo honestly be so stupid and clueless that he's unaware they do? If
he's not really that stupid and clueless, why do you think the stupid Goober's
pretending that he is?

[George Plimpton]

On 6/18/2013 3:37 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 6/13/2013 3:51 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in
>>> his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>
>>>>
>>>> He's always
>>>
>>> That seems
>>
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
>> livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
>> "benefit."
>>

>>> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>>> can not experience
>>
>> Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. Envy, pride,
>> remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal
>> experience.
>
> For one thing there's no reason to believe they can't

Yes, there is. This is well understood by people who actually know
something about brain function and animals. You don't.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/18/2013 3:36 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 6/13/2013 2:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2013 8:50 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 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:34 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 5/30/2013 4:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>> They don't want humans to kill the animals because they think it's

>>>>>> wrong, *Goo*. They don't state any thoughts about whether the animals
>>>>>> lives are worth living, *Goo*. You're simply lying about that, as
>>>>>> usual.
>>>>>

>>>>> So you want us to think they feel it's wrong for them to live
>>>>> or die
>>>>

>>>> Both, *Goo*. They feel it's wrong for them to exist in the first place,
>>>> but if they do exist, *Goo*, they think it's wrong for humans to kill
>>>> them.
>>>>

>>>> This isn't hard to understand, *Goo*, and in fact, you *do* understand
>>>> it but because you're a dishonest shitbag, you're pretending not to
>>>> understand it. You understand it, *Goo*.
>>>

>>> What do you want us to think makes people who can't distinguish
>>> between
>>> which livestock have decent lives and which don't,
>>

>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>
> You've proven that

I've proven that existence - "getting to experience life", in your
fuckwitted cracker-speak - isn't a benefit.

>>>>>>>> The main thing is, they don't want humans to
>>>>>>>> kill animals to use them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They want to prevent animals from being killed by preventing
>>>>>>> such animals

>>>>>>> from having any life at all
>>>>
>>>> <chortle> You just write like shit, *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Which does *not* mean they think those animals that exist have lives

>>>>>> worth living, *Goo*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're simply far too stupid and inept for this, *Goo*.
>>>>>

>>>>> The fact that they want them to continue living means
>>>>

>>>> ...that they think it's wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*. That's
>>>> what it means, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> They obviously feel those lives are worth living
>>
>> No, *Goo*. That's why they don't want any more livestock to exist, *Goo*.
>>
>> You can't do it, *Goo*. I'm too smart and too quick for you. Concede
>> defeat now, *Goo*, because you're defeated.
>

> That's a

It's so, *Goo*. You've admitted it.


>>>>>>>>> They also want to prevent those lives from taking place in the

>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because they don't want humans to end those lives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their position is consistent, if misguided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you think it's misguided
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Because it is not morally wrong for humans to kill animals, *Goo*.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> what I've been saying for 14 years. Learn to read, you stupid fucking
>>>>>> cracker rapist.
>>>>>

>>>>> No more wrong than it is for
>>>>

>>>> I said I don't believe it is morally wrong for humans to kill animals to
>>>> consume them, *Goo*. It's a straightforward statement.
>>>
>>> No more wrong than
>>
>> I said I don't believe it is morally wrong, *Goo*. It's a
>> straightforward statement. You're beating a dead horse, *Goo* - wasting
>> time.
>

> No more wrong than

Dead end, *Goo*.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/18/2013 3:37 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 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:

>
>> On Jun 13, 4:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>>
>>>>> He's always
>>>
>>>> That seems
>>>
>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
>>> livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
>>> "benefit."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>>>> can not experience
>>>
>>> Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. Envy, pride,
>>> remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal experience.
>>
>>
>> So a cat can't anticipate a mouse coming out of a mousehole?
>

> Could he honestly be so stupid and clueless that he's unaware they do?

They don't.

As before, you and your butt-buddy are equivocating on the word
"anticipation." One meaning is to expect something will happen in
response to signals. That is not an emotion, it's a cognitive brain
activity. Another meaning is the emotion someone feels from thinking
about something that is expected to happen. I already gave you an
example: a child who feels a happy excitement, or anticipation, after
being told he's going to go to an amusement park when the weekend
arrives; or the dread a child feels when anticipating a parent's
reaction to some misdeed. No animal feels those. This is not in
rational dispute. No dog experiences the emotion of anticipation over
the later arrival of its owner coming home from work, but a child does.

Animals do not experience the emotion of anticipation. That's settled.

[dh]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:43:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:37:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:06:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 13, 4:51 pm, the Goober wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 PM, dh quoted the Goober:

>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>> >> He's always
>>>>
>>>> >      That seems
>>>>
>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
>>>> livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
>>>> "benefit."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>>>> >      can not experience
>>>>
>>>> Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions.  Envy, pride,
>>>> remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>So a cat can't anticipate a mouse coming out of a mousehole?
>>

>> Could Goo honestly be so stupid and clueless that he's unaware they do? If
>>he's not really that stupid and clueless, why do you think the stupid Goober's
>>pretending that he is?
>

>As before, you and your butt-buddy are equivocating on the word
>"anticipation." One meaning is to expect something will happen in
>response to signals. That is not an emotion, it's a cognitive brain
>activity. Another meaning is the emotion someone feels from thinking
>about something that is expected to happen.

It's the same thing Goob.

>I already gave you an
>example: a child who feels a happy excitement, or anticipation, after
>being told

The ability to UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE is completely different than the ability
to anticipate you stupid STUPID! Goober.

>he's going to go to an amusement park when the weekend
>arrives; or the dread a child feels when anticipating a parent's
>reaction to some misdeed. No animal feels those.

You've shown two things Goo.

1. You're an idiot for believing as you do IF you're truly idiotic enough to
believe what you claim.

2. You haven't been around animals enough to have any clue at all what they are
and are not capable of.

Here's a clue for you Goob: pecking orders only CAN exist because birds and
other creatures besides humans feel dread when anticipating a reaction from
dominant beings.

>This is not in
>rational dispute. No dog experiences the emotion of anticipation over
>the later arrival of its owner coming home from work

You are an aidiot Goober. LOTS of animals anticipate the arrival of their
owners, and it's so obvious and so widely known that it's a wonder even someone
as stupid and clueless as yourself is unaware of that basic fact, Goo.

>but a child does.

Children do TOO, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/20/2013 3:22 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 6/18/2013 4:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 3:37 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 Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:06:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton, in

>>> his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>>

>>>> On Jun 13, 4:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2013 12:30 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 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Ron Hamilton,
>>>>>> in his 40s and still in community college, blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's always
>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems
>>>>>
>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, and if
>>>>> livestock animals are no longer bred, no entity is "cheated" out of any
>>>>> "benefit."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>>>>>> can not experience
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-human animals cannot experience any complex emotions. Envy, pride,
>>>>> remorse, empathy, schadenfreude - all of these are beyond animal
>>>>> experience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So a cat can't anticipate a mouse coming out of a mousehole?
>>>

>>> Could he honestly be so stupid and clueless that he's unaware
>>> they do?
>>
>> They don't.

>>
>> As before, you and your butt-buddy are equivocating on the word
>> "anticipation." One meaning is to expect something will happen in
>> response to signals. That is not an emotion, it's a cognitive brain
>> activity. Another meaning is the emotion someone feels from thinking
>> about something that is expected to happen.
>
> It's the same thing

No, *Goo*, it is not, and you know it is not.

>> I already gave you an
>> example: a child who feels a happy excitement, or anticipation, after
>> being told
>
> The ability to UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE is completely different than

*Goo*: It has nothing to do with language, *Goo*. The child can think
about the future *indefinitely*, between the time he acquires some
information and when the event in the future takes place. The non-human
animal can *ONLY* make an immediate response to a signal, *Goo*. At
noon, a dog cannot "anticipate" being fed at 6:00pm, *Goo*. It feels no
*emotion* at noon about its evening meal, *Goo*.

I'm right about this, *Goo*, and you know I am. You're just doing your
*Goo* cracker schtick again. It's who you are, *Goo*: a stupid cracker
*goober*.

>
>> he's going to go to an amusement park when the weekend
>> arrives; or the dread a child feels when anticipating a parent's
>> reaction to some misdeed. No animal feels those.
>
> You've shown two things

I've shown one thing, *Goo*: animals do not experience complex emotions
like anticipation.

>
>> This is not in
>> rational dispute. No dog experiences the emotion of anticipation over
>> the later arrival of its owner coming home from work
>

> You are an aidiot. LOTS of animals anticipate the arrival of their
> owners

No, *none* do. The animal *only* responds immediately to a signal like
hearing the car in the driveway, *Goo*. Humans can experience the
*emotion* of anticipation without any signal, *Goo*.

You're just wrong on this, *Goo*. I have proved you to be wrong and
stupid. Again.