Re: Goo who?
halfawake
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:08:50 +0100, "possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>news:5b7g06tumfolaj3tm...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:44:31 +0100, "possum"
>>><zen1...@zen.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>vegans don't need a rationale to want animals to exist.
>>>
>>> Vegans are opposed to all livestock.
>>>
>>>
>>>>animals are alive. they exist and they are living
>>>>creatures.
>>>
>>> Livestock exist because of their consumers, NOT because
>>>of
>>>vegans. Vegans don't contribute to life for any livestock.
>>>If you
>>>don't understand that much you are as clueless as it's
>>>possible
>>>to be, even though you're also very likely to be some sort
>>>of
>>>veg*n yourself. You don't know what you're trying to talk
>>>about
>>>whether you're a veg*n or not.
>>
>>animals exist and are living creatures.
>>
>>that says it all for me and you your irrelevant and deluded
>>blatherings add nothing worthwhile.
>
>
> Vegans contribute nothing to livestock farming with their
> lifestyle. That is their INTENTION. If you can't even get that
> far with this then whatever you have going on in your own brain
> is the delusion. Of course that makes me curious: If you think
> that vegans do somehow contribute to livestock as "living
> creatures" with their lifestyle, how do you think they do so even
> as they intentionally try to avoid it?
they refrain from killing, that's all. what's so difficult to
understand about that? once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
reason they came into the world.
The only thing that the meat industry contributes to animals is
overpopulation, fear, suffering and pain. Causing more animals to be
born in order to torture them is not doing them a favor, but exploiting
them in the most disgusting way.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
oxtail
Even for cows in India?
--
oxtail
dh
It's the complete opposite of what you claim. Meat consumers
contribute to the lives of livestock and their deaths, and the
deaths of wildlife. Vegans ONLY contribute to the deaths of
wildlife deliberately. They also contribute to the deaths of
livestock by their contributions to things made with animal
by-products, but they don't contribute to their lives as the
average consumer does, imo. So when we look at the big picture
vegans ONLY contribute to killing, they don't "refrain from
killing" at all.
>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>reason they came into the world.
Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
against the elimination objective.
In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
lives of positive value, veganism only contributes to the
crushing, shreading, sophocating, maming, poisoning, drowning,
etc of wildlife.
>The only thing that the meat industry contributes to animals is
>overpopulation, fear, suffering and pain.
There is no excuse for livestock to endure enough fear and
suffering to make their lives of negative value, and I believe
the vast majority of them do not. And I KNOW your claim that it's
the "only thing the meat industry contributes to" is horribly
dishonest. You may honestly be ignorant enough to believe, but if
so you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed if you know it
not true as well, so either way you should be ashamed of yourself
for ever saying anything like that.
>Causing more animals to be
>born in order to torture them is not doing them a favor, but exploiting
>them in the most disgusting way.
>
>Robert
You are extremely ignorant, extremely dishonest, or most
likely a mixture of both. Some livestock have terrible lives and
some have decent lives, and unless you can learn to acknowledge
both you will never be able to make a distinction between when
they are good and when they are bad.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:54:58 -0400, halfawake
> <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward, The Liar - lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:08:50 +0100, "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward, The Liar - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:44:31 +0100, "possum"
>>>>> <zen1...@zen.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> vegans don't need a rationale to want animals to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegans are opposed to all livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> animals are alive. they exist and they are living
>>>>>> creatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Livestock exist because of their consumers, NOT because
>>>>> of
>>>>> vegans. Vegans don't contribute to life for any livestock.
>>>>> If you
>>>>> don't understand that much you are as clueless as it's
>>>>> possible
>>>>> to be, even though you're also very likely to be some sort
>>>>> of
>>>>> veg*n yourself. You don't know what you're trying to talk
>>>>> about
>>>>> whether you're a veg*n or not.
>>>>
>>>> animals exist and are living creatures.
>>>>
>>>> that says it all for me and you your irrelevant and deluded
>>>> blatherings add nothing worthwhile.
>>>
>>>
>>> [cracker bullshit]
>>
>> they refrain from killing, that's all. what's so difficult to
>> understand about that?
>
> [cracker bullshit]
>
>> once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>> specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>> it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>> reason they came into the world.
>
> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
> people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
> deserves.
No. You *only* demand of people that they want livestock animals to exist.
oxtail
> You are extremely ignorant, extremely dishonest, or most
> likely a mixture of both. Some livestock have terrible lives and some
> have decent lives, and unless you can learn to acknowledge both you will
> never be able to make a distinction between when they are good and when
> they are bad.
You might be in the minority on this.
Anyhow we need to make it clear
whether we are talking about a species
or individual animals that already exist.
You are talking about the species, aren't you?
halfawake
You're even stupider than Fred.
>
>
>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>reason they came into the world.
>
>
> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
> people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
> deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
> against the elimination objective.
> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
> lives of positive value,
Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up. You don't have
any right to use that terms with respect to animals. The fact that you
don't understand that makes you a sick kind of sociopath with respect to
animals. I won't try to explain it to you. And you won't think about
it after decades of stupidity justifying your own souless values.
veganism only contributes to the
> crushing, shreading, sophocating, maming, poisoning, drowning,
> etc of wildlife.
>
>
>>The only thing that the meat industry contributes to animals is
>>overpopulation, fear, suffering and pain.
>
>
> There is no excuse for livestock to endure enough fear and
> suffering to make their lives of negative value, and I believe
> the vast majority of them do not. And I KNOW your claim that it's
> the "only thing the meat industry contributes to" is horribly
> dishonest.
It's not dishonest since I believe it's the truth. You don't even
understanding the fucking meaning of words.
You may honestly be ignorant enough to believe, but if
> so you should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed of trying to assess the "positive value" of lives
that you intend to violently take away. You're a true sociopath with
respect to animals. And it's only a small step from there to people.
You should be ashamed if you know it
> not true as well, so either way you should be ashamed of yourself
> for ever saying anything like that.
I am ashamed of you and your bland, immoral labels which sanitize your
violent beliefs.
>
>
>>Causing more animals to be
>>born in order to torture them is not doing them a favor, but exploiting
>>them in the most disgusting way.
>>
>>Robert
>
>
> You are extremely ignorant, extremely dishonest, or most
> likely a mixture of both.
You are an ignorant and uncaring sociopath who promotes violence with
bland fascist labels. You are sick.
Some livestock have terrible lives and
> some have decent lives, and unless you can learn to acknowledge
> both you will never be able to make a distinction between when
> they are good and when they are bad.
There is no case for killing animals being a benefit to anyone but the
scavengers who feed off the meat. Any other justification is dishonest
and the intent is to sanitize the violence done to animals.
Robert
= = = = = = =
dh
I'm correct about it. In news groups with a bunch of
eliminationists I'm not suprised that most if none of the
participants have any clue about it, making me in the minority
for being familiar with it, but it's true no matter how many
other people can't learn to comprehend much less appreciate it.
>Anyhow we need to make it clear
>whether we are talking about a species
>or individual animals that already exist.
>You are talking about the species, aren't you?
I'm talking about the animals who do exist, have existed, and
will exist if eliminationists are not successful at preventing
their existence. That would include billions of chickens, cattle,
swine, dogs, cats, horses, etc... Not "species" but the animals
who will be born, that eliminationists are trying to prevent.
dh
<epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL! You obviously are since he tricked you into calling him
"Fred". Goobernicus, or just Goo, is the best way of referring to
him. Otherwise he'll have you calling him Fred now, and Ted
later, and Dieter another time, and dozens or more like "Dutch"
does for him.
Oh, and btw, vegans ONLY contribute to killing, where meat
consumers contribute to both life and death for livestock. Yes
they also contribute to the killing of wildlife as vegans do,
sometimes more and sometimes less, but they contribute to life
too unlike vegans.
Vegans ONLY contribute to death.
>>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>>reason they came into the world.
>>
>>
>> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
>> people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
>> deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
>> against the elimination objective.
>> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
>> lives of positive value,
>
>Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up.
That's in part no doubt because you ONLY contribute to death
for wildlife, but never deliberately to lives of positive value
for any animals much less any livestock.
>You don't have
>any right to use that terms with respect to animals. The fact that you
>don't understand that makes you a sick kind of sociopath with respect to
>animals. I won't try to explain it to you.
I contribute to what I consider to be lives of positive value
for chickens, cattle, turkeys, and possibly swine. Vegans in
contrast ONLY contribute to death for wildlife.
>And you won't think about
>it after decades of stupidity justifying your own souless values.
>
> veganism only contributes to the
>> crushing, shreading, sophocating, maming, poisoning, drowning,
>> etc of wildlife.
>>
>>
>>>The only thing that the meat industry contributes to animals is
>>>overpopulation, fear, suffering and pain.
>>
>>
>> There is no excuse for livestock to endure enough fear and
>> suffering to make their lives of negative value, and I believe
>> the vast majority of them do not. And I KNOW your claim that it's
>> the "only thing the meat industry contributes to" is horribly
>> dishonest.
>
>It's not dishonest since I believe it's the truth.
I can't believe you are honestly THAT ignorant and clueless,
but if you really are that means from my pov you truly ARE
unbelievably ignorant and clueless.
>You don't even
>understanding the fucking meaning of words.
>
> You may honestly be ignorant enough to believe, but if
>> so you should be ashamed.
>
>You should be ashamed of trying to assess the "positive value" of lives
>that you intend to violently take away.
You should be ashamed not only for thinking that, but for
being completely unable to do it for animals you so dishonestly
are trying to pretend you care a little bit about.
>You're a true sociopath with
>respect to animals. And it's only a small step from there to people.
>
> You should be ashamed if you know it
>> not true as well, so either way you should be ashamed of yourself
>> for ever saying anything like that.
>
>I am ashamed of you and your bland, immoral labels which sanitize your
>violent beliefs.
The vegans I've seen try to "sanitize" theirs have done it by
contemptibly denying their own contributions. That's very much
like being opposed to consideration of lives of positive value
for livestock because it's dishonesty with absolutely no regard
for the animals, but only for what vegans selfishly want to
believe even though it's a lie. You people are an insult to the
animals you prove you don't care about, and oppose consideration
of.
oxtail
> oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>>Anyhow we need to make it clear
>>whether we are talking about a species or individual animals that
>>already exist. You are talking about the species, aren't you?
>
> I'm talking about the animals who do exist, have existed, and
> will exist if eliminationists are not successful at preventing their
> existence. That would include billions of chickens, cattle, swine, dogs,
> cats, horses, etc... Not "species" but the animals who will be born,
> that eliminationists are trying to prevent.
Same thing.
--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.
halfawake
You are an imbecile.
>
>
>>>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>>>reason they came into the world.
>>>
>>>
>>> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
>>>people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
>>>deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
>>>against the elimination objective.
>>> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
>>>lives of positive value,
>>
>>Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up.
>
>
> That's in part no doubt because you ONLY contribute to death
> for wildlife, but never deliberately to lives of positive value
> for any animals much less any livestock.
I am not a vegetarian, imbecile. I just don't make up fascist bullshit
to justify killing animals.
I'm not a vegan, you fucking moron.
dh
<epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Other than death, what do you want people to think vegans
contribute to and HOW?
>>>>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>>>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>>>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>>>>reason they came into the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
>>>>people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
>>>>deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
>>>>against the elimination objective.
>>>> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
>>>>lives of positive value,
>>>
>>>Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up.
>>
>>
>> That's in part no doubt because you ONLY contribute to death
>> for wildlife, but never deliberately to lives of positive value
>> for any animals much less any livestock.
>
>I am not a vegetarian
I believe you're lying.
halfawake
How do vegans kill animals by refraining from eating meat? That is a
good piece of Animal Farm double-speak.
>
>
>>>>>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>>>>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>>>>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>>>>>reason they came into the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
>>>>>people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
>>>>>deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
>>>>>against the elimination objective.
>>>>> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
>>>>>lives of positive value,
>>>>
>>>>Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's in part no doubt because you ONLY contribute to death
>>>for wildlife, but never deliberately to lives of positive value
>>>for any animals much less any livestock.
>>
>>I am not a vegetarian
>
>
> I believe you're lying.
Well, as I have said before, you are clearly an imbecile. The fact that
you can't imagine a meat-eater who thinks you're a disgusting murderous
fascist *because of your ideas* shows your lack of both intelligence and
imagination. I just came from a restaurant where I ate and thoroughly
enjoyed a combo dinner of two beef dishes, a lamb dish and two different
kinds of lentils. The lentils were not meat, but some very tender
lentils were plucked before their time to make that dish.
As I said very sensibly I thought, I don't try to make believe that I am
helping animals by killing them. The fact that you do makes you a human
swine. It is one thing to kill for food, or eat the fruits of someone
else killing to produce food. That *can* be okay if the animals are
treated with respect and given a decent life. I am in favor of
free-range raising of animals, and do not accept any kind of
stall-living or physical abuse acceptable. But given the right
conditions - which we do not have at present in most places - I amnot
against eating meat and raising animals for meat.
But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
every day.
oxtail
>
> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
If we create artificial intelligence life forms,
will their lives be worthless just because we created them
to serve us?
halfawake
> halfawake wrote:
>
>
>>But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>>are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>
>
>
> If we create artificial intelligence life forms,
> will their lives be worthless just because we created them
> to serve us?
>
I never said that animals raised for food had worthless lives. I think
their lives are worth living if they are allowed to live under decent
conditions. What I think is obscene is the idea that bringing animals
into the world in order to kill them for meat is what *gives* animals'
lives positive value. It is a view that people who kill animals for
their own benefit and create an animal's life designed to end in blood
and usually fear are some kind of Saints for bringing the animals into
the world. That is a disgusting view. I think that if animals are
raised for food we can at least be morally uncertain about it, not smug
and self-congratulatory.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
Fred C. Dobbs
It's because it's a *bullshit* term, Goo. All it *means*, Goo is that
the animals exist:
"benefit from lives of positive value" is the experiences of life
a being encounters after "coming into existence".
Goo/Fuckwit Harrison - 12/30/2009
in "What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?"
"experiences of life", Goo, is existence. You *said* it, Goo:
"lives of positive value" = existence.
That's all it ever meant, Goo.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker liar - lied:
>
> As I said very sensibly I thought, I don't try to make believe that I am
> helping animals by killing them. The fact that you do makes you a human
> swine.
Worse.
> It is one thing to kill for food, or eat the fruits of someone
> else killing to produce food. That *can* be okay if the animals are
> treated with respect and given a decent life. I am in favor of
> free-range raising of animals, and do not accept any kind of
> stall-living or physical abuse acceptable. But given the right
> conditions - which we do not have at present in most places - I amnot
> against eating meat and raising animals for meat.
>
> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
That's exactly what's wrong with the (il)Logic of the Larder. Causing
the animals to exist is *not* doing them a favor. It's not doing
anything morally wrong, but it is not doing anything morally
praiseworthy for the animals, either.
>
> You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
> the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
> every day.
Forget it - if you eat meat but oppose Fuckwit's obscene rationale for
doing so, he will call you a vegetarian and an "animal rights activist".
In fact, over the 11 years I've seen him trying to sell his stale
bullshit in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, not *ONE* other meat eater
ever accepted his fuckwitted rationale - not *ONE*. At best, they just
thought he was a useful idiot in the fight against the obscenity of
"animal rights"; more typically, they just told him he was nuts.
Fred C. Dobbs
> halfawake wrote:
>
>>
>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>
>
> If we create artificial intelligence life forms,
> will their lives be worthless just because we created them
> to serve us?
We will not be doing them a "favor" by creating them.
bundling snowfalls
why does he need such a spaced out
load of shit to justify eating it?
why aren't the conventional arguments
enough for him... pretty weird hey.
Fred C. Dobbs
> oxtail wrote:
>
>> halfawake wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we create artificial intelligence life forms,
>> will their lives be worthless just because we created them
>> to serve us?
>>
>
> I never said that animals raised for food had worthless lives. I think
> their lives are worth living if they are allowed to live under decent
> conditions.
Whether or not their lives are worth living is irrelevant. They might
have wonderful lives, all of them, but that does not mean we have done
them a "favor" by causing them to exist.
bundling snowfalls
to me it just comes down to either you
care enough about animals or you don't,
if you don't then fine. i don't care
about animals enough to believe all of
meat eating should stop myself. further
than that there are some sane positions
of the health or naturalness for us to
eat it on a biological level. i don't
in particular like looking UP to animals
for diet, but there is some rationality
in considering how wide spread it is in
the animal kingdom to eat other animals.
but to bring them into a meat farm for
their own benefit is just freakin nuts.
Fred C. Dobbs
Exactly.
I think he must have thought, despite his admission a decade ago that he
is a high school dropout who does not do brain work to make a living,
that he was clever enough to make it stick. But I'm dead serious when I
said that over the years, all the other anti-"ar" people in this group
either told him he was nuts, or completely ignored him. He was not seen
as a real ally against "ar"; he was just a useful idiot who bothered
some of the "aras" a little, but not much - the vast majority of "aras"
simply ignored him, too. For the last seven or eight years, Fuckwit has
only been fighting with other antis who thinks he's a fool.
> why aren't the conventional arguments
> enough for him... pretty weird hey.
There's no explaining his level of stupidity.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
Nor your's it would seem.
bundling snowfalls
i figured it out, he has virtues of utter
innocence, compassion, that he can't make
compatible with meat eating without BS.
perhaps it's a saintly ego pained to excuses.
Fred C. Dobbs
There was no 12-year-old.
oxtail
Did your parents have the sex
that resulted in your conception
"solely" to have pleasure?
Is that why you are
so full of anger and hatred?
Things are not as simple
as you think they are.
Human motivations are not as simple
as you think they are.
Just as we can hate to eat what we love,
we can love to eat what we love.
oxtail
Even a life in a death camp can be
better than non-existence.
oxtail
All depends on your perspective.
Some people think their life is not worth living
and commit suicide.
But most people think life is worth living
no matter what the condition is.
oxtail
Life might be worth living
no matter what the condition is.
--
oxtail
Did your parents have the sex
that resulted in your conception
"solely" to have pleasure?
Is that why you are
so full of anger and hatred?
--
oxtail
How about training soldiers to kill people?
Fred C. Dobbs
> halfawake wrote:
>
>> oxtail wrote:
>>> halfawake wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>>>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>>
>>> If we create artificial intelligence life forms, will their lives be
>>> worthless just because we created them to serve us?
>>>
>> I never said that animals raised for food had worthless lives. I think
>> their lives are worth living if they are allowed to live under decent
>> conditions. What I think is obscene is the idea that bringing animals
>> into the world in order to kill them for meat is what *gives* animals'
>> lives positive value. It is a view that people who kill animals for
>> their own benefit and create an animal's life designed to end in blood
>> and usually fear are some kind of Saints for bringing the animals into
>> the world. That is a disgusting view. I think that if animals are
>> raised for food we can at least be morally uncertain about it, not smug
>> and self-congratulatory.
>
>
> Did your parents have the sex
> that resulted in your conception
> "solely" to have pleasure?
Irrelevant. They didn't do Robert a "favor" by conceiving him.
Fred C. Dobbs
Wrong comparison.
Fred C. Dobbs
It doesn't. Fuckwit calls anyone who disputes his shitty, self-serving
rationale for eating meat an "animal rights activist" or an
"eliminationist", even if the person himself eats meat. That's the
issue. Perspective isn't involved.
Fred C. Dobbs
We are not doing farm animals a "favor" by causing them to exist, no
matter what the condition of existence is.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2010 9:57 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>
>>>> halfawake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>>>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>>>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>>>>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we create artificial intelligence life forms, will their lives be
>>>> worthless just because we created them to serve us?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I never said that animals raised for food had worthless lives. I think
>>> their lives are worth living if they are allowed to live under decent
>>> conditions.
>>
>> Whether or not their lives are worth living is irrelevant. They might
>> have wonderful lives, all of them, but that does not mean we have done
>> them a "favor" by causing them to exist.
>
>
Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
Fred C. Dobbs
Causing animals to live is not doing them any "favor".
oxtail
Have you asked the cows in India?
oxtail
Tell that to God.
Or to Nature.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2010 9:07 AM, oxtail wrote:
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/2010 9:30 PM, oxtail wrote:
>>>>> halfawake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>>>>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>>>>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when
>>>>>> you are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we create artificial intelligence life forms, will their lives be
>>>>> worthless just because we created them to serve us?
>>>>
>>>> We will not be doing them a "favor" by creating them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Life might be worth living
>>> no matter what the condition is.
>>
>> We are not doing farm animals a "favor" by causing them to exist, no
>> matter what the condition of existence is.
>
>
> Have you asked the cows in India?
No need, and obviously pointless.
You just did more fuckwitted "zen game" bullshit with that inane
question. Not productive.
Fred C. Dobbs
No good deed was done to the entity that comes into existence.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
Concerning an animal that is farmed for food you are correct, Goober.
Put a mark on the wall. I think that's the only time you've ever been
right about anything.
Fred C. Dobbs
Of course.
halfawake
> On 6/29/2010 9:18 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker liar - lied:
>>
>> As I said very sensibly I thought, I don't try to make believe that I am
>> helping animals by killing them. The fact that you do makes you a human
>> swine.
>
>
> Worse.
>
>
>> It is one thing to kill for food, or eat the fruits of someone
>> else killing to produce food. That *can* be okay if the animals are
>> treated with respect and given a decent life. I am in favor of
>> free-range raising of animals, and do not accept any kind of
>> stall-living or physical abuse acceptable. But given the right
>> conditions - which we do not have at present in most places - I amnot
>> against eating meat and raising animals for meat.
>>
>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>> opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>
>
> That's exactly what's wrong with the (il)Logic of the Larder. Causing
> the animals to exist is *not* doing them a favor. It's not doing
> anything morally wrong, but it is not doing anything morally
> praiseworthy for the animals, either.
>
>
>>
>> You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
>> the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
>> every day.
>
>
> Forget it - if you eat meat but oppose Fuckwit's obscene rationale for
> doing so, he will call you a vegetarian and an "animal rights activist".
> In fact, over the 11 years I've seen him trying to sell his stale
> bullshit in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, not *ONE* other meat eater
> ever accepted his fuckwitted rationale - not *ONE*. At best, they just
> thought he was a useful idiot in the fight against the obscenity of
> "animal rights"; more typically, they just told him he was nuts.
Well I guess then that I'm just a vegetarian who happens to eat meat. I
eat vegetables too, so he's half right.
BTW, this discussion could become even more stupefying confusing by
discussing what has been done to vegetables and plants by modern
farming. Many hardy and protein-rich grains and vegetable varieties
have been forced into extinction by selective breeding, insecticides and
chemical fertilizers and factory farming of the hardiest, often least
nutritious, varieties. We tend to think that "wheat" for instance is one
thing, but even within Western wheat there are many varieties and then
there are high-protein wheats like kamut, the strongly nutritive
Ethiopian saple Keff and many others that we tend to ignore and if given
the chance, destroy. Animal rights are highly important, but the
destruction of vegetable species should not be ignored. When was the
last time you got a decent tomato from a grocery store? I used to get
really good ones all the time a couple of decades ago. All gone. If
not for organic farming, many more species of vegeables would be destroyed.
Best,
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
halfawake
Right; my point is that I am not denying that animals *can* have decent
lives by denying that existence itself is doing them a favor. They are
two separate points; not connected as dh would like to construe it.
halfawake
Sorry, but I don't see that as an expression of hatred. I see it as a
protest against hatred disguised as love. If you want to defend those
who justify killing with flowery concepts, I think it's you who are on
the side of hate and fear, not me.
As for my parents, I am quite sure that they had love in their hearts
when they conceived me. Perhaps when your parents had sex they were
concentrating on creating a self-justifying machine that would generate
self-righteousness as its main product, but who knows? I'm not the
Buddha, so I don't really know exactly what your parents were thinking
when they fucked, what positions they enjoyed, or even whether your mom
was into it or not.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
halfawake
It's not a fitting comparison, oxtail, in fact it's obscene. Life in a
death camp is not a choice. Once one is alive, one generally tries to
survive even under extremely painful circumstances. That doesn't mean
it's "better" than non-existence. It means it may be worth fighting to
stay alive even though it is a horrific existence, at least up to a
point. But unless you are a survivor of a death camp or forced march
you are in no position to invoke the life-and-death struggle of death
camp victims. Maybe you should find ammunition for your point that is
more pertinent to your own understanding and less presumptuous.
At least with concentration camp or death camp victims,you can ask them
if it was worth it to stay alive under those conditions and how they
made such a choice. You can't ask animals, and so the proper thing to
do is take good care of them, and no put them in that position.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
halfawake
Again, the fact that someone will try to stay alive under horrifying
conditions does not mean it is "worth living." It only means that they
make the choice to try to stay alive. "Worth living" makes it sound
like it has an "okay" element in some sense, and this is not the case.
Your judgment of whether it is "worth it" is presumptuous and beside the
point. It's a stupid and callous category error. A lot of survivors
would tell you that they chose to live because they wanted to live, but
that it was *not* worth it. Try digesting that truthful contradiction.
People lived, but parts of themselves were lost forever, and often
they were broken in a way from which it was impossible to ever recover.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
Did your dad have sex with your mother in order to dominate and control
her? Is that why you have such a hard time talking to people as if they
are human?
halfawake
Training soldiers to kill people is evil. It's either a necessary evil
or not. Which do you think it is?
oxtail
You are underestimating the power of empathy.
What did the Buddha say about all sentient beings?
halfawake
Do you think that God or Nature has ears?
oxtail
Ever been non-existent?
oxtail
You are not getting it.
The point is that it does not matter much
how and why we are born so long as we are born.
It does not matter much why and how we bring
farm animals into existence.
It's a good thing.
That's what it means for life to be sacred.
oxtail
How about breeding people to become soldiers?
oxtail
Do you even know what it is that thinks?
Fred C. Dobbs
I was certain you didn't know. Thanks for the confirmation.
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs
oxtail
Incredible.
Not even familiar with pedagogical questioning?
bundling snowfalls
i take back whatever it was i said
before. bout time you got unmucked.
Fred C. Dobbs
Not really. Your ignorance is legendary.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 8:50 PM, oxtail wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >> On 6/30/2010 8:22 PM, oxtail wrote:
> >>> halfawake wrote:
>
> >>>> oxtail wrote:
>
> >>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 6/29/2010 8:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:26:01 -0400,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:54:58 -0400, halfawake
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:08:50 +0100,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:5b7g06tumfolaj3tm...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:44:31 +0100, "possum"
No more so than your's, Goobs.
Fred C. Dobbs
No 12-year-old, bitch. You lied about that.
zenworm
> oxtail wrote:
> > Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >>On 6/29/2010 8:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:26:01 -0400, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:54:58 -0400, halfawake
>
> >>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:08:50 +0100, "possum"<zen102...@zen.co.uk>
> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:5b7g06tumfolaj3tm...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:44:31 +0100, "possum"
it is worth it
to discover what cannot be taken
^~
bundling snowfalls
jesus stole my girlfriend
zenworm
Viktor Frankl
wrote a small book of vast impact
out of just such an experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_Meaning
"Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of
living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and
death."
^~
zenworm
dh
<epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:22:08 -0400, halfawake
>> <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:26:01 -0400, halfawake
>>>><epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:54:58 -0400, halfawake
>>>>>><epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:08:50 +0100, "possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:5b7g06tumfolaj3tm...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:44:31 +0100, "possum"
>>>>>>>>>><zen1...@zen.co.uk>
>How do vegans kill animals
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>by refraining from eating meat? That is a
>good piece of Animal Farm double-speak.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>once creatures exist, shedding their blood is a
>>>>>>>specific act that has consequences. you can't go backwards to justify
>>>>>>>it. living creatures deserve respect and good treatment, no matter what
>>>>>>>reason they came into the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Livestock are provided with such quite often, and I encourage
>>>>>>people to give that aspect of the situation the consideration it
>>>>>>deserves. Eliminationists oppose that suggestion because it works
>>>>>>against the elimination objective.
>>>>>> In contrast to providing millions of livestock with decent
>>>>>>lives of positive value,
>>>>>
>>>>>Your term "positive value" makes me want to throw up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's in part no doubt because you ONLY contribute to death
>>>>for wildlife, but never deliberately to lives of positive value
>>>>for any animals much less any livestock.
>>>
>>>I am not a vegetarian
>>
>>
>> I believe you're lying.
>
>Well, as I have said before, you are clearly an imbecile. The fact that
>you can't imagine a meat-eater who thinks you're a disgusting murderous
>fascist *because of your ideas* shows your lack of both intelligence and
>imagination. I just came from a restaurant where I ate and thoroughly
>enjoyed a combo dinner of two beef dishes, a lamb dish and two different
>kinds of lentils. The lentils were not meat, but some very tender
>lentils were plucked before their time to make that dish.
>
>As I said very sensibly I thought, I don't try to make believe that I am
>helping animals by killing them. The fact that you do makes you a human
>swine.
If someone actually refuses to consider the lives of the very
animals he is consuming then THAT person is an inconsiderate pig.
So you are either an inconsiderate pig or a veg*n of some sort,
or very likely both.
>It is one thing to kill for food,
That's what farming is. This is the point where I wonder if
someone (in this case you) is extremely slow, or not moving at
all.
>or eat the fruits of someone
>else killing to produce food.
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does...
>That *can* be okay
Proclaims someone who is either extremely slow or not moving
at all.
>if the animals are
>treated with respect and given a decent life.
First you criticize me for considering decent lives of
positive value, then you pretend to try considering them
yourself.
>I am in favor of
>free-range raising of animals, and do not accept any kind of
>stall-living
I do, and realise that anyone who makes such a blank
statement as that doesn't have any idea what they think they're
trying to talk about.
>or physical abuse acceptable. But given the right
>conditions - which we do not have at present in most places - I amnot
>against eating meat and raising animals for meat.
LOL! So now you're trying to convince me that you're against
raising animals for meat in most cases, but you eat it anyway.
>But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>opportunity to live."
It DOES give all of them the opportunity to live. It does NOT
do all of them a favor. IF you can ever get that far, then MAYBE
you can move on. If you never can, then you are nowhere with this
issue and never will be.
>That is making believe you are a saint
That is a blatant lie, afaik.
>when you
>are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>
>You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
>the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
>every day.
Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
of animals you claim to eat makes me believe you must be an
extremely inconsiderate person, whether you ever eat any meat or
not.
dh
<epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>oxtail wrote:
>
>> halfawake wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>>>animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>>>opportunity to live." That is making believe you are a saint when you
>>>are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we create artificial intelligence life forms,
>> will their lives be worthless just because we created them
>> to serve us?
>>
>
>I never said that animals raised for food had worthless lives. I think
>their lives are worth living if they are allowed to live under decent
>conditions. What I think is obscene is the idea that bringing animals
>into the world in order to kill them for meat is what *gives* animals'
>lives positive value.
The value of life you refuse to consider is for the animals
themselves, not the consumers. Oh, no, you people don't mind
considering their lives when you think they are horrible...in
fact you love doing that, but what you refuse to do is consider
when it's positive FOR THE ANIMALS. Of course from my pov that
makes you people seem disgusting.
>It is a view that people who kill animals for
>their own benefit and create an animal's life designed to end in blood
>and usually fear are some kind of Saints for bringing the animals into
>the world. That is a disgusting view. I think that if animals are
>raised for food we can at least be morally uncertain about it, not smug
>and self-congratulatory.
Your obsession over things like that coupled with your
refusal to consider the lives of the animals we're discussing
makes me believe you must be some sort of veg*n, among other
things related to it.
Fred C. Dobbs
You do not consider the lives of the animals you consume, Fuckwit.
>> It is one thing to kill for food, or eat the fruits of someone
>> else killing to produce food. That *can* be okay
>
> Proclaims someone who
Who is not an "ara"
>> if the animals are
>> treated with respect and given a decent life.
>
> First you criticize me for considering decent lives of
> positive value
No, Fuckwit - he criticizes you for *not* considering animals' welfare
at all.
>> I am in favor of
>> free-range raising of animals, and do not accept any kind of
>> stall-living
>
> I do
You do not care about animal welfare, Goo:
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>> or physical abuse acceptable. But given the right
>> conditions - which we do not have at present in most places - I amnot
>> against eating meat and raising animals for meat.
>
> So now you're trying to convince me that you're against
> raising animals for meat in most cases
No, you stupid fuckwit - he just said he is not against it.
You are too stupid, Fuckwit.
>> But I am against your disgusting philosophy that we are doing the
>> animals a favor by raising them for food, because it "gives them the
>> opportunity to live."
>
> It DOES give all of them the opportunity to live.
Meaningless. "Opportunity to live" is not a benefit to them, Fuckwit.
>> That is making believe you are a saint
>
> That is a blatant lie
No, Fuckwit. You *DO* believe you are virtuous for causing animals to
live, but you are not.
>> when you
>> are a mere selfish carnivore or scavenger and it is shameful.
>>
>> You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
>> the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
>> every day.
>
> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
> of animals
You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
dh
<w...@time.dr> wrote:
>On 30/06/2010 1:06 PM, Goo lied:
>> On 6/29/2010 9:18 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>>
>>> You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
>>> the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
>>> every day.
>>
>> Forget it - if you eat meat but oppose Fuckwit's obscene rationale for
>> doing so, he will call you a vegetarian and an "animal rights activist".
>> In fact, over the 11 years I've seen him trying to sell his stale
>> bullshit in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, not *ONE* other meat eater
>> ever accepted his fuckwitted rationale - not *ONE*.
Goo lied to you. There were a number of people who agreed
with me and understood what I was referring to before I discussed
it with them. Other people never will. From what I remember
though it was always people who had/have experience around
livestock who appreciate what I'm saying, and rarely if ever
people who have had little or none. Oh and btw not only did some
people agree with me, but the Goober argued about it with some of
those who did. I remember one man who called himself Marl
specifically telling Goo that what I'm pointing out is so far
over his head he'll never be able to appreciate it, which has
held true for over a decade.
>> At best, they just
>> thought he was a useful idiot in the fight against the obscenity of
>> "animal rights"; more typically, they just told him he was nuts.
Goo lied to you again. There were two misnomer opponents who
told me they didn't agree with me, but they never gave any reason
why they didn't. One was Ward Clark and the other was Rick Etter.
There was another guy who acted veg*n to me, who gave a number of
reasons why he was opposed, the vast majority if not all of which
were eliminationist arguments and he said so himself.
>why does he need such a spaced out
>load of shit to justify eating it?
I don't need anything to justify it. I feel more mental guilt
over killing spiders than eating meat, though I kill hundreds of
them every year so they don't overun the place too much.
>why aren't the conventional arguments
>enough for him... pretty weird hey.
Why should whatever you think you're referring to be
"enough"? Do you shut your brain down about every issue in your
life when you think you've gotten "enough" out of it or
something? I was farther along with all this in grade school than
ANY eliminationist I've ever encountered is ever likely to get in
his whole life. I was beyond where you are--OBVIOUSLY--in grade
school because that's when I started hanging around on a dairy
farm and learned what life is like for dairy cattle. Later I
spent time on a number of different farms and learned more and
more, so from grade school on I was aware of what I've been
pointing out in these ngs, though I didn't put it all together
until about high school. Anyway, I did, and I coudn't "unlearn"
down to your level even if I tried. So no it's not "weird" that I
don't try to unlearn and somehow try to become as ignorant as the
people who can't appreciate what I'm pointing out to them, any
more than it is when you don't try to unlearn things you've been
aware of for the majority of your life.
dh
<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Goo wrote:
>
>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>
>
>Tell that to God.
>Or to Nature.
At one time Goo claimed to have a son. If he does, he
probably tells the boy that regularly.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:09:30 +0800, bundling snowfalls
> <w...@time.dr> wrote:
>
>>> On 6/29/2010 9:18 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can think what you like based on my objection to your stupidity, but
>>>> the fact of the matter is, I am an omnivore and eat meat of some kind
>>>> every day.
>>>
>>> Forget it - if you eat meat but oppose Fuckwit's obscene rationale for
>>> doing so, he will call you a vegetarian and an "animal rights activist".
>>> In fact, over the 11 years I've seen him trying to sell his stale
>>> bullshit in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, not *ONE* other meat eater
>>> ever accepted his fuckwitted rationale - not *ONE*.
>
No, Fuckwit, I did not. You have called *everyone* who has told you
your cracker bullshit LoL is bullshit an "ara".
*YOU* lied, Goo.
> There were a number of people who agreed
> with me
No, there were not.
>>> At best, they just
>>> thought he was a useful idiot in the fight against the obscenity of
>>> "animal rights"; more typically, they just told him he was nuts.
>
> Fred lied to you again.
No, Goo.
> There were two "ar" opponents who
> told me they didn't agree with me, but they never gave any reason
> why they didn't. One was Ward Clark and the other was Rick Etter.
Ward Clark and Rick Etter *both* told you that you are completely full
of shit, Goo. They *both* said that the LoL was completely illogical
bullshit.
>> why does he need such a spaced out
>> load of shit to justify eating it?
>
> I don't need anything to justify it.
That's a lie, Fuckwit. Your entire fuckwitted spew here is nothing but
an attempt to justify your meat eating. You feel intense, deep guilt
over it.
>> why aren't the conventional arguments
>> enough for him... pretty weird hey.
>
> Why should whatever you think you're referring to be
> "enough"?[snip cracker bullshit spew]
You show *NO* consideration for animals' lives, Goo. This is not in
dispute.
Fred C. Dobbs
dropout - lied:
>>
>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>>
>>
>> Tell that to God.
>> Or to Nature.
>
I do have a son, Goo. He has a very good life, especially with a loving
and involved dad like me, but coming into existence was not a benefit to
him. Rather, the things I try to add to his life are benefits to him.
That's how it works, Goo.
firehose
> David Harrison
>>
>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>> of animals
>
> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
By calling people names?
--
Firehose should not be replied to but experienced.
oxtail
> oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>Goo wrote:
>>
>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>>
>>Tell that to God.
>>Or to Nature.
>
> At one time Goo claimed to have a son. If he does, he
> probably tells the boy that regularly.
Do you think his son is grateful
for being brought into existence?
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker - lied:
>>>
>>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>>> of animals
>>
>> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
>
>
> By calling people names?
Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
firehose
> On 7/1/2010 12:29 PM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker high-school
> dropout - lied:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:32:24 +0000 (UTC), oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell that to God.
>>> Or to Nature.
>>
>> At one time he claimed to have a son.
>
> I do have a son, Goo. He has a very good life, especially with a loving
> and involved dad like me, but coming into existence was not a benefit to
> him. Rather, the things I try to add to his life are benefits to him.
>
> That's how it works, Goo.
Why don't you tell him what you do here?
If you are rich, he might try
to have you declared incompetent.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2010 12:29 PM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker high-school
>> dropout - lied:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:32:24 +0000 (UTC), oxtail<oxt...@nowhere.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to God.
>>>> Or to Nature.
>>>
>>> At one time he claimed to have a son.
>>
>> I do have a son, Goo. He has a very good life, especially with a loving
>> and involved dad like me, but coming into existence was not a benefit to
>> him. Rather, the things I try to add to his life are benefits to him.
>>
>> That's how it works, Goo.
>
>
> Why don't you tell him what you do here?
I tell him I try to help stupid nymshifting cuntflaps stop losing the
"zen game" here.
firehose
> On 7/1/2010 1:16 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2010 12:29 PM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker
>>> high-school dropout - lied:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:32:24 +0000 (UTC), oxtail<oxt...@nowhere.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a
>>>>>> "favor".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that to God.
>>>>> Or to Nature.
>>>>
>>>> At one time he claimed to have a son.
>>>
>>> I do have a son, Goo. He has a very good life, especially with a
>>> loving and involved dad like me, but coming into existence was not a
>>> benefit to him. Rather, the things I try to add to his life are
>>> benefits to him.
>>>
>>> That's how it works, Goo.
>>
>>
>> Why don't you tell him what you do here?
>
> I tell him I try to help stupid nymshifting cuntflaps stop losing the
> "zen game" here.
Without bothering to read a single book on Zen?
oxtail
> "oxtail" <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> dh wrote:
>>> oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>>>Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a "favor".
>>>>
>>>>Tell that to God.
>>>>Or to Nature.
>>>
>>> At one time Goo claimed to have a son. If he does, he
>>> probably tells the boy that regularly.
>>
>>
>> Do you think his son is grateful
>> for being brought into existence?
>
> If you would stop trying to pose as a zen master for one moment you
> might see how silly and irrelevant that question is.
Are you grateful
Fred C. Dobbs
Would you like to learn how to stop losing the fuckwitted
waste-of-your-life "zen game", cuntflaps?
Fred C. Dobbs
Another lame attempt at playing the "zen game" - and another loss.
firehose
> nymshifting cuntflaps bullshitted:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker - lied:
>>>>
>>>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>>>> of animals
>>>
>>> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
>>
>>
>> By calling people names?
>
> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
Do you want me to call you names?
firehose
Are you begging to be called all kinds of names?
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> nymshifting cuntflaps bullshitted:
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker - lied:
>>>>>
>>>>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>>>>> of animals
>>>>
>>>> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
>>>
>>>
>>> By calling people names?
>>
>> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
>
>
> Do you want me to call you names?
Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
--
firehose
> On 7/1/2010 1:42 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> nymshifting cuntflaps bullshitted:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>>>>>> of animals
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By calling people names?
>>>
>>> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game",
>>> cuntflaps?
>>
>>
>> Do you want me to call you names?
>
> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
Begging to called all kinds of names?
Fred C. Dobbs
[another "zen game" losing effort snipped]
You're completely off your game - *again*.
firehose
>
> You're completely off your game - *again*.
At South Mountain, clouds are formed.
At North Mountain, rain falls.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2010 1:42 PM, firehose wrote:
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>> nymshifting cuntflaps bullshitted:
>>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker - lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boasting of pure and absolute inconsideration for the lives
>>>>>>> of animals
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't boast of it, Fuckwit - you try to conceal it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By calling people names?
>>>>
>>>> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game",
>>>> cuntflaps?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you want me to call you names?
>>
>> Would you like to learn how to stop losing at the "zen game", cuntflaps?
>
>
I really got you good.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>>
>> You're completely off your game - *again*.
>
>
I got you.
firehose
>
> I really got you good.
When I am hungry, I eat.
When I am tired, I sleep.
firehose
>
> I got you.
Why does the fly not use the empty gate,
But rather buzzes foolishly against the wall?
If he were to drill at the old paper for one hundred years,
When would he ever escape?
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>>
>> I really got you good.
>
>
Ha ha ha ha ha!
firehose
> On 7/1/2010 3:19 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I really got you good.
>>
>>
>> [losing "zen game" play erased]
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha!
When the light is on, it is bright.
When the light is off, it is dark.
Is your larder dark?
oxtail
> "oxtail" <oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:i0iu6t$f34$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> You obviously didn't take my advice.
Be grateful for everything.
It works.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>>
>> I got you.
>
>
Yes, I sure did. You're completely off your game.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2010 3:19 PM, firehose wrote:
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I really got you good.
>>>
>>>
>>> [losing "zen game" play erased]
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>
You lose again.
Fred C. Dobbs
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "oxtail"<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>> news:i0iu6t$f34$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "oxtail"<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>>> dh wrote:
>>>>>> oxtail<oxt...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Causing a living entity to exist is not doing that entity a
>>>>>>>> "favor".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that to God.
>>>>>>> Or to Nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At one time Goo claimed to have a son. If he does, he
>>>>>> probably tells the boy that regularly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think his son is grateful
>>>>> for being brought into existence?
>>>>
>>>> If you would stop trying to pose as a zen master for one moment you
>>>> might see how silly and irrelevant that question is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you grateful
>>> for being brought into existence?
>>
>> You obviously didn't take my advice.
>
>
Dutch got you, too!
firehose
> On 7/1/2010 3:27 PM, firehose wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> I got you.
>>
>>["zen game" repeated loss snipped]
>
> Yes, I sure did. You're completely off your game.
You are learning in spite of yourself.
If you scoop up water in your hands,
You will get the reflection of your moon.
If you touch a fragrant bush,
This smell will penetrate your clothes.