Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fuckwit David Harrison: no valid *ethical* objection to "ar"
81 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 11:53:49 AM12/3/12
to
The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
"ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
*Goo*; nothing about animals.
"ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
*Goo*; nothing about animals.
Rupert
Dec 3, 2012, 12:21:06 PM12/3/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 12:42:11 PM12/3/12
to
of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 12:53:59 PM12/3/12
to
inflict on humans are completely groundless at best, and perhaps
themselves completely unethical - that is, they would impose hardship on
harm on humans for no good reason.
Mr.Smartypants
Dec 3, 2012, 1:22:09 PM12/3/12
to
Rupert
Dec 3, 2012, 3:56:48 PM12/3/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 3:59:40 PM12/3/12
to
time. You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
gave you my answer.
Rupert
Dec 3, 2012, 4:12:37 PM12/3/12
to
On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
> >>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> > Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> time.
No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
> >>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> > Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> time.
your view clearly.
> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
> gave you my answer.
Your objection seems to me to pretty much amount to saying "I don't
agree". You must be aware that some animal rights advocates make some
effort to argue for their point of view. You're not engaging with
these arguments in any serious way.
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 4:16:23 PM12/3/12
to
On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>>
>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>
>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>> time.
>
> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> your view clearly.
No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>>
>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>
>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>> time.
>
> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> your view clearly.
everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>> gave you my answer.
>
> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
great detail.
Rupert
Dec 4, 2012, 6:09:08 AM12/4/12
to
On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
> >>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> >>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> >> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> >> time.
>
> > No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> > your view clearly.
>
> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>
I'm sorry that you regard it as a waste of time to try to defend your
> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
> >>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> >>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> >> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> >> time.
>
> > No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> > your view clearly.
>
> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>
views.
> >> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
> >> gave you my answer.
>
> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>
> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
> great detail.
great detail.
As far as your performance in this thread goes, you are in the same
boat as David Harrison: you haven't presented any kind of serious
objection to animal rights philosophy.
Julian
Dec 4, 2012, 6:31:24 AM12/4/12
to
Rupert
Dec 4, 2012, 8:01:36 AM12/4/12
to
too much attention to which groups are in the list.
George Plimpton
Dec 4, 2012, 10:49:09 AM12/4/12
to
>>>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>> gave you my answer.
>>
>>> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>
>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>> great detail.
>
> I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
> great detail.
in detail before.
George Plimpton
Dec 4, 2012, 10:50:09 AM12/4/12
to
>> They're cretinous cross posters. Are you one too?
>
> I apologize if it was off-topic for your group; I don't usually pay
> too much attention to which groups are in the list.
your reply.
Mr.Smartypants
Dec 4, 2012, 12:44:39 PM12/4/12
to
Rupert
Dec 4, 2012, 1:26:10 PM12/4/12
to
Rupert
Dec 4, 2012, 1:48:42 PM12/4/12
to
doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
in the least?
George Plimpton
Dec 4, 2012, 1:52:47 PM12/4/12
to
Rupert
Dec 5, 2012, 4:13:12 AM12/5/12
to
string whereby I can find your previous answer?
George Plimpton
Dec 5, 2012, 3:59:28 PM12/5/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - makes a big pretense of being outraged
that so-called "ethical vegetarians" aren't giving some kind of
"consideration" to the prospect of livestock animals' "getting to
experience life", but in fact, *he* doesn't care about livestock
animals' welfare or experience of life at all. He just wants the
products, but for some reason he's ashamed of that.
that so-called "ethical vegetarians" aren't giving some kind of
"consideration" to the prospect of livestock animals' "getting to
experience life", but in fact, *he* doesn't care about livestock
animals' welfare or experience of life at all. He just wants the
products, but for some reason he's ashamed of that.
Mr.Smartypants
Dec 6, 2012, 3:11:43 AM12/6/12
to
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:14:19 PM12/6/12
to
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On 4 Dez., 19:52, Goo wussed horribly:
_________________________________________________________
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
him. In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
regardless of how good it is for the animals:
_________________________________________________________
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
wrote:
>On 4 Dez., 19:52, Goo wussed horribly:
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
him. In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
regardless of how good it is for the animals:
_________________________________________________________
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:14:48 PM12/6/12
to
considers to be support for it:
"Rights are not given. Rights exist." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't *MEAN* anything" - Goo
""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
their deaths" - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:15:00 PM12/6/12
to
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
Goo.
>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>
>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>> time.
>>
>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>> your view clearly.
>
>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>>
>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>
>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>> time.
>>
>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>> your view clearly.
>
>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
Goo.
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:15:57 PM12/6/12
to
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:09:08 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
eliminationists feel:
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
>> >> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>> >> gave you my answer.
>>
>> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>
>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>> great detail.
>
>I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>great detail.
We see that Goo supports acceptance of elimination, but we see no opposition
to it even when the stupid Goober is challenged directly to try to come up with
some. As I've pointed out countless times, the goos all appear to be
eliminationisits, 2 out of 3 of them lying about it. Actually YOU have PRETENDED
to be more AW minded than Goo ever has by muttering things you don't believe
like:
"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>As far as your performance in this thread goes, you are in the same
>boat as David Harrison: you haven't presented any kind of serious
>objection to animal rights philosophy.
What I point out should be significant for people who have not yet decided
and for people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination. For people who
have already put their faith in elimination and won't consider moving on to
something superior, the lives of billions of animals are meaningless as they are
to you and the goos.
wrote:
>On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> > On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >>>>>> It's all about *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>> >>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>> >>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>> >>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>>
>> >>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>
>> >> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>> >> time.
>>
>> > No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>> > your view clearly.
>>
>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>
>
>I'm sorry that you regard it as a waste of time to try to defend your
>views.
Here is how the Goober feels about livestock, which is the way all
>> >>>>>> It's all about *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>> >>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>> >>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>> >>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>>
>> >>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>
>> >> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>> >> time.
>>
>> > No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>> > your view clearly.
>>
>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>
>
>I'm sorry that you regard it as a waste of time to try to defend your
>views.
eliminationists feel:
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
their deaths" - Goo
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
>> >> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>> >> gave you my answer.
>>
>> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>
>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>> great detail.
>
>I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>great detail.
to it even when the stupid Goober is challenged directly to try to come up with
some. As I've pointed out countless times, the goos all appear to be
eliminationisits, 2 out of 3 of them lying about it. Actually YOU have PRETENDED
to be more AW minded than Goo ever has by muttering things you don't believe
like:
"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert
"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>As far as your performance in this thread goes, you are in the same
>boat as David Harrison: you haven't presented any kind of serious
>objection to animal rights philosophy.
and for people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination. For people who
have already put their faith in elimination and won't consider moving on to
something superior, the lives of billions of animals are meaningless as they are
to you and the goos.
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:19:09 PM12/6/12
to
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:53:49 -0800, Goo wrote:
>It's all about *Goo*; nothing about animals.
"I eat meat." - Goo
>It's all about *Goo*; nothing about animals.
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
when I didn't." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 3:47:54 PM12/6/12
to
The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
"ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
*Goo*; nothing about animals.
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 3:47:56 PM12/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. "
Fake quote.
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the
> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote."
True.
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
True.
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
True.
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life"
True.
> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives""
You should shut the fuck up, *Goo* - you have no "appreciation" for
their lives; only the products.
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
Not quote.
> "the moral harm caused by
Not a quote.
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
Not a quote.
> "it is not "better" that
Not a quote.
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists."
True.
> "logically one MUST
> conclude that
Not a quote.
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals."
True.
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions."
True.
> "you MUST believe that it
Not a quote.
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
True.
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration,
Not a quote.
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate
Not a quote.
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them."
True.
>>>>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>>> gave you my answer.
>>>
>>>> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>>
>>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>>> great detail.
>>
>> I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>> great detail.
>
> We see that
We see that existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit,
*Goo*.
futility alive with:
> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. "
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the
> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote."
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life"
> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives""
their lives; only the products.
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> "the moral harm caused by
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
> "it is not "better" that
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists."
> "logically one MUST
> conclude that
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals."
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions."
> "you MUST believe that it
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration,
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them."
>>>>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>>> gave you my answer.
>>>
>>>> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>>
>>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>>> great detail.
>>
>> I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>> great detail.
>
> We see that
*Goo*.
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 3:47:57 PM12/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George B. Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>> your view clearly.
>>
>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>
> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination
Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on
>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>> your view clearly.
>>
>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>
> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination
"future farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no
value. If no additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it
would be meaningless that no more livestock would "get to experience
life." That's a fact, *Goo* - it would have no meaning at all.
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 3:47:58 PM12/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
>> On 4 Dez., 19:52, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>> in the least?
>>>
>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>
>>
>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
> _________________________________________________________
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
Not a quote.
>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>> in the least?
>>>
>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>
>>
>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
> _________________________________________________________
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
> "the moral harm caused by killing them
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist,
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> We see George TELLS US that
I tell you - I have *proved* to you, *Goo* - that existence, or "getting
to experience life", is not a benefit. It isn't, *Goo* - it cannot be.
> _________________________________________________________
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George M. Plimpton
True.
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George N. Plimpton
True.
>
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
True.
>
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
True.
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
True.
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
All true statements, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 4:40:41 PM12/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, aka *Goo*, a convicted felon, lied:
> [*Goo's* comical lies snipped]
Actually, *Goo* I have elaborated at length on the fallacies of "ar",
specifically on the false moral premises of it.
> [*Goo's* comical lies snipped]
Actually, *Goo* I have elaborated at length on the fallacies of "ar",
specifically on the false moral premises of it.
dh
Dec 10, 2012, 4:51:52 PM12/10/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:58 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Dez., 19:52, Goo wussed horribly:
They're all quotes Goober and you agree with yourself about every one of
them. If you want to try to pretend you don't then YOU need to try explaining
how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about any of them, Goo.
>> We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
>>him.
>
>I tell you
That it means nothing to you, Goo.
>>In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
>>regardless of how good it is for the animals:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>All true statements, *Goo*.
We know you agree with yourself about all of it Goob, but you seem to want
to try pretending you don't agree with yourself about something. Can you tell us
what you think it is Goo, or don't you know what you think you disagree with
yourself about?
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>> > doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>> > in the least?
>>>>
>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> > I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>> > doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>> > in the least?
>>>>
>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>Not a quote.
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
They're all quotes Goober and you agree with yourself about every one of
them. If you want to try to pretend you don't then YOU need to try explaining
how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about any of them, Goo.
>> We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
>>him.
>
That it means nothing to you, Goo.
>>In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
>>regardless of how good it is for the animals:
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>All true statements, *Goo*.
We know you agree with yourself about all of it Goob, but you seem to want
to try pretending you don't agree with yourself about something. Can you tell us
what you think it is Goo, or don't you know what you think you disagree with
yourself about?
dh
Dec 10, 2012, 4:53:03 PM12/10/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:56 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST
>We see that
Yet again Goober you act like you want people to think you disagree with
yourself about something. Don't you know what it is Goo? These are all YOUR
quotes so when you lie that they're not you automatically lose by forfeit Goob,
but the lies you tell suggest you want people to think you disagree with
yourself about something. What do you want us to think you disagree with
yourself about Goo, and how do you want us to think you disagree?
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>
>>"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST
>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>
>>>> >> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>> >> gave you my answer.
>>>>
>>>> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>>>> great detail.
>>>
>>>I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>>>great detail.
>>
>>>> >> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>> >> gave you my answer.
>>>>
>>>> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>>>> great detail.
>>>
>>>I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>>>great detail.
>>
Yet again Goober you act like you want people to think you disagree with
yourself about something. Don't you know what it is Goo? These are all YOUR
quotes so when you lie that they're not you automatically lose by forfeit Goob,
but the lies you tell suggest you want people to think you disagree with
yourself about something. What do you want us to think you disagree with
yourself about Goo, and how do you want us to think you disagree?
dh
Dec 10, 2012, 4:53:39 PM12/10/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
Since you have none you can't even pretend you do, Goo. If you had anything
then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
nothing at all Goob.
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>> your view clearly.
>>>
>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>> your view clearly.
>>>
>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>
>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>Goo.
>
>Of course
>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>Goo.
>
Since you have none you can't even pretend you do, Goo. If you had anything
then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
nothing at all Goob.
dh
Dec 10, 2012, 4:53:47 PM12/10/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
> It's all about *Goo*;
> It's all about *Goo*;
"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo
>nothing about animals.
when I didn't." - Goo
George Plimpton
Dec 10, 2012, 5:49:25 PM12/10/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>> is thathe would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>
>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>> nothing about animals.
>
> [cracker nonsense]
*Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
George Plimpton
Dec 10, 2012, 5:49:26 PM12/10/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George B. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>
>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>> you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>> Goo.
>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>
>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>> you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>> Goo.
>>
>> Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on "future
>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>> it would have no meaning at all.
>
>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>> it would have no meaning at all.
>
> Since you have none you
I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You
have nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which
you're ashamed.
George Plimpton
Dec 10, 2012, 5:49:26 PM12/10/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. "
Fake quote.
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. "
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the
> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote."
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life"
> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives""
You should shut the fuck up, *Goo* - you have no "appreciation" for
their lives; only the products.
their lives; only the products.
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
Not quote.
> "the moral harm caused by
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
> "it is not "better" that
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists."
> "logically one MUST
> conclude that
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals."
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions."
> "you MUST believe that it
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration,
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them."
>>>>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>>>>> gave you my answer.
>>>
>>>> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>>>
>>> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
>>> great detail.
>>
>> I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
>> great detail.
>
> We see that
George Plimpton
Dec 10, 2012, 5:49:30 PM12/10/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:58 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dez., 19:52, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> in the least?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
Not a quote.
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dez., 19:52, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> in the least?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live"
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> Not a quote.
>
> They're all quotes
>>> George TELLS US that
>>
>> I tell you - I have *proved* to you, *Goo* - that existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit. It isn't, *Goo* - it cannot be.
>
> That it means nothing to
It means nothing - period. It means nothing to anyone, *Goo*.
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>>>
>>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>> breeding of livestock"
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists."
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>> asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero."
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>> ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> All true statements, *Goo*.
>
> We know you agree with
dh
Dec 12, 2012, 3:59:29 PM12/12/12
to
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:30 -0800, Goo wussed:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:51:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:58 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>Not a quote.
>>
They're all quotes Goob AND you agree with yourself about every one of them.
Proved. Proved by YOU, Goo.
>>>> We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
>>>>him.
>>>
>>>I tell you
>>
>> That it means nothing to you, Goo.
>>
>>>>In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
>>>>regardless of how good it is for the animals:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
every one of them, including the ones you're trying to lie about.
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:51:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:58 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4 Dez., 19:52, Goo wussed horribly:
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> > doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> > in the least?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>>>string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> > doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> > in the least?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>>>string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>Not a quote.
>>
>> They're all quotes Goober and you agree with yourself about every one of
>>them. If you want to try to pretend you don't then YOU need to try explaining
>>how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about any of them, Goo.
>
>They're not quotes.
>>them. If you want to try to pretend you don't then YOU need to try explaining
>>how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about any of them, Goo.
>
They're all quotes Goob AND you agree with yourself about every one of them.
Proved. Proved by YOU, Goo.
>>>> We see the Goober TELLS US that "quality of live" means nothing at all to
>>>>him.
>>>
>>>I tell you
>>
>> That it means nothing to you, Goo.
>>
>>>>In his attempts to support the misnomer Goo wants to reassure people that
>>>>regardless of how good it is for the animals:
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>>>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>>>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>
>>>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>>>asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>>>to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>>>
>>>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>All true statements, *Goo*.
>>
>>>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>All true statements, *Goo*.
>>
>> We know you agree with yourself about all of it Goob, but you seem to want
>>to try pretending you don't agree with yourself about something. Can you tell us
>>what you think it is Goo, or don't you know what you think you disagree with
>>yourself about?
>
>>to try pretending you don't agree with yourself about something. Can you tell us
>>what you think it is Goo, or don't you know what you think you disagree with
>>yourself about?
>
>They're all true statements, *Goo* - all of them *proved* to be true.
What has been proven by YOU Goo is that you do agree with yourself about
every one of them, including the ones you're trying to lie about.
dh
Dec 12, 2012, 3:59:37 PM12/12/12
to
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
Provide some examples or be again known a liar, Goo.
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>Of course
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>Of course
>>
>> Since you have none you can't even pretend you do, Goo. If you had anything
>>then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
>>nothing at all Goob.
>
>I ha
>>then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
>>nothing at all Goob.
>
Provide some examples or be again known a liar, Goo.
dh
Dec 12, 2012, 3:59:42 PM12/12/12
to
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, dh@. wrote:
LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
suck at this!
BTW Goo, your inability to care about the animals is yet another way you
reveal yourself. You misnomer addicts can ONLY care about YOUR OWN interests in
promoting acceptance of elimination, and THAT of course necessarily won't allow
you people to consider the animals as everybody else can:
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>
>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>
>>>nothing about animals.
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>
>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>
>>>nothing about animals.
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>
LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
suck at this!
BTW Goo, your inability to care about the animals is yet another way you
reveal yourself. You misnomer addicts can ONLY care about YOUR OWN interests in
promoting acceptance of elimination, and THAT of course necessarily won't allow
you people to consider the animals as everybody else can:
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
George Plimpton
Dec 12, 2012, 4:55:06 PM12/12/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>
>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>
>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>
> LOL!!! You proved
I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection
to "ar", *Goo*.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
George Plimpton
Dec 12, 2012, 4:55:08 PM12/12/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton slapped Fuckwit David Harrison silly:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Plimpton stuck a red-hot poker up Fuckwit's gaping HIV-oozing asshole:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no opposition to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on "future
>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>
>>> Since you have none
>>
>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>
>>> Since you have none
>>
>> I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You have
>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>
> Provide some examples
>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>
I have. You've seen them. You've been crushed by them.
*YOU*, *Goo*, have no valid objection to "ar". That's a fact - proved.
George Plimpton
Dec 12, 2012, 4:55:08 PM12/12/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:58 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:14:19 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dez., 19:52, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> in the least?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
Not a quote.
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:13:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4 Dez., 19:52, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2012 10:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious to know something. Do you think that animal suffering
>>>>>> doesn't matter at all? That it's totally irrational to care about it
>>>>>> in the least?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've asked me that before, and I answered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you would be willing to give some handy Google search
>>>> string whereby I can find your previous answer?
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are,
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live"
Not a quote, although it *is* a true statement.
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> Not a quote.
>
> They're all quotes
They're not quotes.
>
> They're all quotes
>>> George TELLS US that
>>
>> I tell you - I have *proved* to you, *Goo* - that existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit. It isn't, *Goo* - it cannot be.
>
> That it means nothing to
It means nothing - period. It means nothing to anyone, *Goo*.
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
True.
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>>>
>>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>> breeding of livestock"
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists."
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>>> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>>> asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero."
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>> ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> All true statements, *Goo*.
>
> We know you agree with
dh
Dec 13, 2012, 3:01:47 PM12/13/12
to
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:08 -0800, Goo proved he's lying again:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
You are again known to be a liar, Goo.
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert challenged:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! You have no opposition to elimination as I've been pointing out and
>>>>>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course
>>>>
>>>> Since you have none you can't even pretend you do, Goo. If you had anything
>>>>then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
>>>>nothing at all Goob.
>>>
>>>I ha
>>
>> Provide some examples or be again known a liar, Goo.
>
>I
>>>>>>you've been demonstrating for years Goob. You can't even pretend that you do,
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course
>>>>
>>>> Since you have none you can't even pretend you do, Goo. If you had anything
>>>>then you could at least try to pretend a little bit, but we see you've got
>>>>nothing at all Goob.
>>>
>>>I ha
>>
>> Provide some examples or be again known a liar, Goo.
>
You are again known to be a liar, Goo.
dh
Dec 13, 2012, 3:01:55 PM12/13/12
to
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, Goo sucked:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, dh@. wrote:
Goo.
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>
>>>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>
>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>
>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>suck at this!
>
>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>
>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>
>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>suck at this!
>
>I proved - beyond dispute
It's beyond dispute that you're a blatant liar AND that you suck at this,
Goo.
George Plimpton
Dec 13, 2012, 5:12:42 PM12/13/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You proved
>>
>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's beyond dispute that
It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar",
*Goo*. It's only about your food - that's all.
George Plimpton
Dec 13, 2012, 5:12:42 PM12/13/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:08 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no opposition to elimination as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on "future
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
>>>> I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You have
>>>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>>>
>>> Provide some examples
>>
>> I have. You've seen them. You've been crushed by them.
>>
>> *YOU*, *Goo*, have no valid objection to "ar". That's a fact - proved.
>
> You are again
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
>>>> I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You have
>>>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>>>
>>> Provide some examples
>>
>> I have. You've seen them. You've been crushed by them.
>>
>> *YOU*, *Goo*, have no valid objection to "ar". That's a fact - proved.
>
I have again showed you to be a liar, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Dec 13, 2012, 5:19:32 PM12/13/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You proved
>>
>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's beyond dispute that
George Plimpton
Dec 13, 2012, 5:19:34 PM12/13/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:08 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no opposition to elimination as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on "future
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
>>>> I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You have
>>>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>>>
>>> Provide some examples
>>
>> I have. You've seen them. You've been crushed by them.
>>
>> *YOU*, *Goo*, have no valid objection to "ar". That's a fact - proved.
>
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
>>>> I have it, *Goo*. I have valid, logical, sound opposition to "ar". You have
>>>> nothing but your own vulgar and crass self interest, of which you're ashamed.
>>>
>>> Provide some examples
>>
>> I have. You've seen them. You've been crushed by them.
>>
>> *YOU*, *Goo*, have no valid objection to "ar". That's a fact - proved.
>
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 7:16:04 AM12/16/12
to
opposition?
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 7:16:54 AM12/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 11:37:36 AM12/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 11:37:54 AM12/16/12
to
On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 11:44:47 AM12/16/12
to
don't agree with the premises of the AR position". You refuse to
specify which premises you have in mind. That is not presenting
rational grounds for your opposition.
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 11:45:02 AM12/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 11:53:53 AM12/16/12
to
lamely attempted to argue against it.
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 11:54:09 AM12/16/12
to
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 12:04:09 PM12/16/12
to
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 12:04:32 PM12/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 12:52:14 PM12/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 12:52:46 PM12/16/12
to
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 3:17:37 PM12/16/12
to
I don't really have any clear memory of you ever offering any
especially clear explanation of why you think the central premises of
animal rights philosophy are false. I can certainly remember you
frequently asserting it. I don't remember all that much by the way of
actual argument. It would be helpful if you could refresh my memory.
Rupert
Dec 16, 2012, 3:26:50 PM12/16/12
to
an argument against the AR position. I've got an idea it might be more
than one year ago.
Peter Singer presents some arguments for the propostion that nonhuman
animals ought to be given equal consideration, in his book "Animal
Liberation". He also presents some factual information about the way
nonhuman animals are treated on modern farms, based on descriptions of
generally accepted farming practices in agricultural journals and also
on having actually visited some farms. I'm pretty confident that
you've never read this book, and I'm certain that you've never engaged
with the arguments in it on this newsgroup in any serious way. Also,
you tend to dismiss the factual information presented in this book out
of hand without even having read it, which obviously you're not in any
position to do rationally.
Tom Regan presents some arguments for the proposition that many
nonhuman animals have rights in his book "The Case For Animal Rights".
I'm pretty confident that you've never read this book, and I'm certain
that you've never engaged with the arguments in it on this newsgroup
in any serious way.
Gary Francione presents some arguments for the proposition that many
nonhuman animals have rights in his book "Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your Child Or The Dog?". I'm pretty confident that you've
never read this book, and I'm certain that you've never engaged with
the arguments in it on this newsgroup in any serious way.
Mylan Engel Jr. offers an argument for the proposition that it is
morally wrong for reasonably well-off people who live in
agriculturally bountiful societies to eat meat, in his article "Why
you are committed to the immorality of eating meat". I don't have any
memory of you offering any reply to this argument which I regarded as
especially serious. In particular, you never really specified which of
the premises of the argument you disagreed with. Mylan Engel Jr. took
care to lay out the premises of the argument quite explicitly.
I myself offered an argument for the proposition that using nonhuman
animals in harmful ways in scientific research is morally wrong, in a
presentation which I gave at the University of Sydney. You made some
criticisms of the argument but I wasn't especially impressed by them.
As far as I can remember, they amounted to saying "Species membership
in itself is a morally significant difference", without any serious
attempt to defend this proposition. I'm pretty confident that just
about every professional moral philosopher, even if they were strongly
opposed to animal liberation and animal rights, would agree that this
is not a serious reply.
I don't have any memory of you offering serious arguments against the
animal rights position.
If I'm wrong, then no doubt it would be within your power to prove me
wrong by presenting your arguments here and now.
George Plimpton
Dec 16, 2012, 8:55:04 PM12/16/12
to
On 12/16/2012 12:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 16, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 5:54 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 6, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, aka *Goo*, a convicted felon, lied:
>>
>>>>>>>>> [*Goo's* comical lies snipped]
>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, *Goo* I have elaborated at length on the fallacies of "ar",
>>>>>>>> specifically on the false moral premises of it.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think they're false?
>>
>>>>>> I've told you already.
>>
>>>>> When was that?
>>
>>>> Earlier.
>>
>>> Was it in 2012?
>>
>> Perhaps; definitely many times between 1999 and 2011.
>
> We first met each other on-line in 2005.
>
> I don't really have any clear memory of you ever offering any
> especially clear explanation of why you think the central premises of
> animal rights philosophy are false.
I did so many times both before and after 2005.
> On Dec 16, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 5:54 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 6, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, aka *Goo*, a convicted felon, lied:
>>
>>>>>>>>> [*Goo's* comical lies snipped]
>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, *Goo* I have elaborated at length on the fallacies of "ar",
>>>>>>>> specifically on the false moral premises of it.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think they're false?
>>
>>>>>> I've told you already.
>>
>>>>> When was that?
>>
>>>> Earlier.
>>
>>> Was it in 2012?
>>
>> Perhaps; definitely many times between 1999 and 2011.
>
> We first met each other on-line in 2005.
>
> I don't really have any clear memory of you ever offering any
> especially clear explanation of why you think the central premises of
> animal rights philosophy are false.
Rupert
Dec 17, 2012, 4:10:16 AM12/17/12
to
locating posts in which you have done so in the past.
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 9:01:39 AM12/17/12
to
so many times in the past. I'm unwilling to help you locate them in the
archives because your ability to search is as good as mine, and you
ought to spend the time searching if you really want to read them.
Rupert
Dec 17, 2012, 11:10:09 AM12/17/12
to
argue about animal rights anymore, has it occurred to you that maybe
it's pointless to keep using the newsgroup at all? After all, the
newsgroup is meant to be for arguing about animal rights.
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 2:12:38 PM12/17/12
to
dh
Dec 17, 2012, 2:42:06 PM12/17/12
to
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Goo confessed he has no opposition to the misnomer:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, Goo sucked:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, dh@. wrote:
YOU have proven that you have none, Goo.
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, Goo sucked:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>>>suck at this!
>>>
>>>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>>>suck at this!
>>>
>>>I proved - beyond dispute
>>
>>
>> It's beyond dispute that you're a blatant liar AND that you suck at this,
>>Goo.
>
>>Goo.
>
>It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar",
>Goo.
YOU have proven that you have none, Goo.
dh
Dec 17, 2012, 2:42:15 PM12/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:52:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 5:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
Instead you encourage acceptance of the idea Goo, as I've demonstrated countless
times and will do again now:
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
"logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 3:12:50 PM12/17/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:52:14 -0800, George M. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 5:53 pm, George N. Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, George O. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, George P. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Q. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, George P. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Q. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
> [snip non-quotes]
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 3:12:52 PM12/17/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, George Plimpton showed he has solid opposition to "ar" (unlike *Goo* Fuckwit David Harrison):
futility alive with:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! You proved
>>>>
>>>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> It's beyond dispute that
>>
>>
>> It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar", Goo.
>
> YOU have proven that.
>
I know. We all know I have proved that you have *NO* valid ethical
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 9:56:44 PM12/17/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You proved
>>
>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's beyond dispute that
It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar",
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> [cracker nonsense - dismissed]
>>>>
>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You proved
>>
>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It's beyond dispute that
It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar",
George Plimpton
Dec 17, 2012, 9:56:45 PM12/17/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:08 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:37 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:26 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:39 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with: :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton proved Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - is lying again:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
>>>>>>>>> your view clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
>>>>>>>> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
>>>>>>>> over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
>>>>>>>> trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no opposition to elimination as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I have, *Goo* - but it doesn't involve placing any value on "future
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
>>>>>> farm animals" "getting to experience life", because that has no value. If no
>>>>>> additional livestock animals were bred, starting today, it would be meaningless
>>>>>> that no more livestock would "get to experience life." That's a fact, *Goo* -
>>>>>> it would have no meaning at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have none
>>>>
Rupert
Dec 18, 2012, 3:26:54 AM12/18/12
to
arguments you presented could possibly still entertain the idea that
the animal rights view might be correct?
Rupert
Dec 18, 2012, 4:00:42 AM12/18/12
to
your basic argument is that only those who are able to understand the
concept of rights can be rightsholders, with a small class of
exceptions. Is that a fair paraphrase?
George Plimpton
Dec 18, 2012, 10:30:54 AM12/18/12
to
George Plimpton
Dec 18, 2012, 10:32:02 AM12/18/12
to
Rupert
Dec 18, 2012, 11:16:30 AM12/18/12
to
actually is.
Rupert
Dec 18, 2012, 11:36:37 AM12/18/12
to
Google search to find arguments you made in the past and you tell me
they are not your arguments.
Obviously, you are not able to argue against the animal rights view.
George Plimpton
Dec 18, 2012, 11:52:10 AM12/18/12
to
not my arguments themselves.
> Obviously, you are not able to argue against the animal rights view.
Rupert
Dec 18, 2012, 12:18:14 PM12/18/12
to
"Rights are a concept that the
rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
notion of rights in which entire species are
"exceptions" doesn't work. Rights fundamentally depend
on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate."
So that's the argument.
Is this the argument which demonstrates to all intelligent people that
animal rights is mistaken?
George Plimpton
Dec 18, 2012, 9:30:48 PM12/18/12
to
I know, just as sure as there's shit in a goat, that you're going to try
to fall back on the lame, old, discredited "marginal cases" bullshit,
but you shouldn't bother. It has been completely rubbished.
Rights belong to those who are of the *kind* that can typically engage
in moral reciprocity. As no non-human animals can engage in it, they
are not candidates for holding rights - not ever.
That's not to say we don't incur obligations to non-human animals - just
that those obligations are not based on any "rights" held by the animals.
Rupert
Dec 19, 2012, 3:47:13 AM12/19/12
to
>
> > "Rights are a concept that the
> > rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
> > can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
> > babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
> > dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
> > rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
> > notion of rights in which entire species are
> > "exceptions" doesn't work. Rights fundamentally depend
> > on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
> > majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
> > behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate."
>
> > So that's the argument.
>
> > Is this the argument which demonstrates to all intelligent people that
> > animal rights is mistaken?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> I know, just as sure as there's shit in a goat, that you're going to try
> to fall back on the lame, old, discredited "marginal cases" bullshit,
> but you shouldn't bother. It has been completely rubbished.
>
> Rights belong to those who are of the *kind* that can typically engage
> in moral reciprocity. As no non-human animals can engage in it, they
> are not candidates for holding rights - not ever.
>
> That's not to say we don't incur obligations to non-human animals - just
> that those obligations are not based on any "rights" held by the animals.
Could I ask you something.
> > "Rights are a concept that the
> > rights-holders themselves conceived and developed. We
> > can easily handle the inclusion of exceptional cases -
> > babies, people in comas or other temporary incapacity,
> > dementia, insanity - by including these cases with the
> > rest of humanity who are not in those classes. The
> > notion of rights in which entire species are
> > "exceptions" doesn't work. Rights fundamentally depend
> > on reciprocity, either directly - as for the vast
> > majority of people - or by someone acting as agents on
> > behalf of the exceptions. Animals cannot reciprocate."
>
> > So that's the argument.
>
> > Is this the argument which demonstrates to all intelligent people that
> > animal rights is mistaken?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> I know, just as sure as there's shit in a goat, that you're going to try
> to fall back on the lame, old, discredited "marginal cases" bullshit,
> but you shouldn't bother. It has been completely rubbished.
>
> Rights belong to those who are of the *kind* that can typically engage
> in moral reciprocity. As no non-human animals can engage in it, they
> are not candidates for holding rights - not ever.
>
> That's not to say we don't incur obligations to non-human animals - just
> that those obligations are not based on any "rights" held by the animals.
When Aristotle wrote that it was just that Greeks should enslave
members of other racial groups, do you think that Aristotle was
factually mistaken at the time when we wrote that?
George Plimpton
Dec 19, 2012, 11:49:15 AM12/19/12
to
know what you're blabbering about.
Rupert
Dec 20, 2012, 3:20:54 AM12/20/12
to
a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In
the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist
without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may
continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate
purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants,
mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of
themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be
preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by
nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its
body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a
slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Now NATURE has
distinguished between the FEMALE and THE SLAVE. For she is not
*********, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many
uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is
best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But AMONG
BARBARIANS no distinction is made between WOMEN and SLAVES, because
there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves,
male and female. Wherefore the poets say,
"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; "
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature
one.
Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and
slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right
when he says,
"First house and wife and an ox for the plough, "
for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association
established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants .... etc.
[Politics Book I, Ch. 2.,1252a line 24 - 1252b line 10]
George Plimpton
Dec 20, 2012, 3:54:24 AM12/20/12
to
Rupert
Dec 20, 2012, 4:50:37 AM12/20/12
to
that there's any chance that you could answer the question?
George Plimpton
Dec 20, 2012, 10:20:10 AM12/20/12
to
>
> Okay, well make it "inhabitants of other countries" then.
were "naturally" slaves.
Rupert
Dec 20, 2012, 11:44:28 AM12/20/12
to
practice of Greeks owning slaves from other countries?
Rupert
Dec 20, 2012, 11:49:13 AM12/20/12
to
of slaveholding was widely believed not to be unjust at that time.
What I am asking you is whether people who held such views were
factually mistaken at the time. It is not really all that important
whether Aristotle is endorsing the view in the passage that I quoted.
I think that he probably is, but it doesn't matter.
Do you suppose that there is any chance you could answer the question?
George Plimpton
Dec 20, 2012, 12:59:39 PM12/20/12
to
The country of origin was immaterial.
Rupert
Dec 20, 2012, 2:28:29 PM12/20/12
to
institution of slavery was not unjust, and I want to know whether you
think that he was factually mistaken at the time when he believed
that. Do you think that there is any chance that you could just answer
the question? Sheesh.
dh
Dec 20, 2012, 5:28:01 PM12/20/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:12:52 -0800, Goo agreed:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:06 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Goo confessed he has no opposition to the misnomer:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, Goo sucked:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, dh@. wrote:
You prove it yourself Goo, every time you're challenged to present some
objection and you're unable to make an attempt. I'll make you lose that
challenge again right now.
Goober, try to present some objections to the elimination objective. Go:
You lose, Goo.
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:06 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Goo confessed he has no opposition to the misnomer:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, Goo sucked:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, the Goober admitted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>>>>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>>>>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>>>>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>>>>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>>>>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>>>>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>>>>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>>>>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>>>>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>>>>>suck at this!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goo admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved it and now you admitted it Goo. Hilarious! What makes it
>>>>>>most hilarious Goober is how much you've outstupided yourself. Though you're
>>>>>>some sort of veg*n misnomer addict you're trying very piss poorly to pretend
>>>>>>you're a meat consumer in an attempt to win the respect of true misnomer
>>>>>>opponents. LOL...you try in your piss poor attempts to portray yourself as an AW
>>>>>>supporter even though what you actually do CLEARLY is in opposition to AW in
>>>>>>favor of elimination. LOL...so it's especially funny that you can't even pretend
>>>>>>to care about the animals in this little fantasy you're trying to get away with
>>>>>>trying to pretend you give some half a shit about AW...LOL... Goo, you REALLY
>>>>>>suck at this!
>>>>>
>>>>>I proved - beyond dispute
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's beyond dispute that you're a blatant liar AND that you suck at this,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar",
>>>Goo.
>>
>>>Goo.
>>
>> YOU have proven that you have none, Goo.
>
>
>I know. We all know I have proved that you have *NO* valid ethical
>objection to "ar" [elimination], Goo.
You prove it yourself Goo, every time you're challenged to present some
objection and you're unable to make an attempt. I'll make you lose that
challenge again right now.
Goober, try to present some objections to the elimination objective. Go:
You lose, Goo.
dh
Dec 20, 2012, 5:47:38 PM12/20/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:12:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:15 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>I oppose "ar" [elimination]. You know it, too.
LOL!!! no one could know it Goober, because there's nothing to indicate that
you do. In contrast to that Goo we have plenty of evidence of you supporting
elimination, as I shared above.
. . .
>>non-quotes]
That's a blatant lie Goo since ALL OF THEM are your quotes, but if you want
to pretend you disagree with yourself about any of them then YOU need to say
what it is and how you think you disagree. But you can't because you agree with
yourself about every bit of it, Goo.
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:15 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:52:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:52:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Dec 16, 5:53 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:16:23 -0800, Goo wussed:
>>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 4:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 10, 11:49 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>>>>>>>> futility alive with:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:57 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:15:00 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert presented no challenge:
LOL!!! no one could know it Goober, because there's nothing to indicate that
you do. In contrast to that Goo we have plenty of evidence of you supporting
elimination, as I shared above.
. . .
>>non-quotes]
That's a blatant lie Goo since ALL OF THEM are your quotes, but if you want
to pretend you disagree with yourself about any of them then YOU need to say
what it is and how you think you disagree. But you can't because you agree with
yourself about every bit of it, Goo.
George Plimpton
Dec 20, 2012, 6:09:47 PM12/20/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:12:50 -0800, George Plimpton made Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - eat shit again:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:15 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:52:14 -0800, George Plimpton made Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - eat shit again:
>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton made Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - eat shit again:
>>>> On 12/16/2012 9:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, George Plimpton made Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - eat shit again:
>> I oppose "ar" [elimination]. You know it, too.
>
> LOL!!! no one could know it
Everyone knows it. You know it. We know you know it.
>
> LOL!!! no one could know it
I oppose "ar". I do so effectively. You don't.
>>> [non-quotes]
>
> That's
They're not quotes. You know it.
George Plimpton
Dec 20, 2012, 6:09:50 PM12/20/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's
objectionable about "ar":
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:12:52 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:06 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [cracker bullshit snipped]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>
>>> YOU have proven that.
>
> You prove it yourself
No, *YOU* prove it, *Goo* - you prove it by your failure *ever* to say
what is objectionable about "ar". *I* have said what is objectionable
about it, *Goo*, but you never have...because you can't.
objectionable about "ar":
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:12:52 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:42:06 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:01:55 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:49:25 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:53:47 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - agreed he can't say what's objectionable about "ar":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:54 -0800, George Plimpton agreed that *Goo* is a fuckwit:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>>>>>> is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about *Goo*;
>>>>>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to "ar"
>>>>>>>>>> nothing about animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [cracker bullshit snipped]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Goo* admits that it's all about him, and not about the animals at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You proved
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You proved
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved - beyond dispute - that you have no valid *ethical* objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's beyond dispute that
>>>>
>>>> It's beyond dispute that you have *NO* valid ethical objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> YOU have proven that.
>>
>> I know. We all know I have proved that you have *NO* valid ethical
>> objection to "ar", *Goo*.
>> I know. We all know I have proved that you have *NO* valid ethical
>
> You prove it yourself
No, *YOU* prove it, *Goo* - you prove it by your failure *ever* to say
what is objectionable about "ar". *I* have said what is objectionable
about it, *Goo*, but you never have...because you can't.
dh
Dec 24, 2012, 4:19:55 PM12/24/12
to
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:09:50 -0800, Goo agreed:
>*YOU* prove it, Goo - you prove it by your failure
You prove it not only by your complete failure to provide any objections
Goo, but also by the countless times you've tried to encourage its acceptance.
You have let Rupert down Goober, and your boys, and anyone else who goes along
with your piss poor attempt to pretend you're not a misnomer addict. In contrast
to that though Goob, you've certainly supported my suspicion that you really are
the dishonest eliminationist you so very clearly appear to be from my pov.
You prove it not only by your complete failure to provide any objections
Goo, but also by the countless times you've tried to encourage its acceptance.
You have let Rupert down Goober, and your boys, and anyone else who goes along
with your piss poor attempt to pretend you're not a misnomer addict. In contrast
to that though Goob, you've certainly supported my suspicion that you really are
the dishonest eliminationist you so very clearly appear to be from my pov.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages