Dietary ethics

[Delvin Benet]

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

[Delvin Benet]

On 7/1/2012 6:31 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Nor is there anything inherently unethical about raising animals in
order to eat them.

[Rupert]

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals. It
is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
enjoy the taste of their flesh.

[Delvin Benet]

[Rupert]

It is unclear whether you disagree with my statement.

[Delvin Benet]

Your statement has no bearing on my point.

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:

> On Jul 3, 6:06 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2012 12:50 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>

>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals. It
>>> is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>>> enjoy the taste of their flesh.
>>
>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
> It is unclear whether you disagree with my statement.
>

It is unclear whether you disagree with his.

[dh]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals? Explain in detail which
livestock lives you feel are not worth living for the animals and why. Don't
just say "suffering" but explain what the suffering is from.

>It
>is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>enjoy the taste of their flesh.

As yet you have no argument whatsoever. On top of having no argument until
you produce examples of the types of suffering you're referring to, you also
have yet to appreciate when life is good for any animals other than grass raised
beef, and you can't decide whether you should be opposed to it or not. Also
grass raised dairy certainly seems like it should provide lives of positive
value not only for the cattle themselves, but also all the wildlife that
benefits from the environment. I believe it's safe to say that wildlife benefit
more from grass raised cattle farming than they do from soybean farming and rice
farming.

[dh]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:44:09 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Rupert wrote:

Rupert doesn't know what to think. He wants to be an eliminationist and an
AW supporter both at the same time, but since it doesn't work that way he can't
figure out what he thinks he thinks. He doesn't want to "give up" either
completely different position. As do you, he also still takes refuge in the
misnomer and is afraid to give it up.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon aka Bumbledork the Clown,
attempted to bullshit:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
> the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals?

The animals lives have no moral meaning. If the animals never exist and
therefore never "get to experience life", that has no meaning.



>> Itis not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can

>> enjoy the taste of their flesh.
>
> As yet you have no argument whatsoever.

He has no less argument than you.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

[George Plimpton]

That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
from elsewhere.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-07-03 23:54, George Plimpton a écrit :
> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,

They have no say in it.

> it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
> from elsewhere.

Like hungriness? Taste? Protein-intake?

[George Plimpton]

On 7/3/2012 9:02 PM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2012-07-03 23:54, George Plimpton a écrit :
>> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>
> They have no say in it.

I didn't suggest they did.

>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
>> from elsewhere.
>
> Like hungriness? Taste? Protein-intake?

Possibly.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:

>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:

>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[George Plimpton]

On 7/4/2012 10:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

It's completely a _non sequitur_, but he's been doing it for years.

[dh]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:51:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel

>>the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals? Explain in detail which
>>livestock lives you feel are not worth living for the animals and why. Don't
>>just say "suffering" but explain what the suffering is from.
>>
>>>It

>>>is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>>>enjoy the taste of their flesh.
>>

>> As yet you have no argument whatsoever. On top of having no argument until
>>you produce examples of the types of suffering you're referring to, you also
>>have yet to appreciate when life is good for any animals other than grass raised
>>beef, and you can't decide whether you should be opposed to it or not. Also
>>grass raised dairy certainly seems like it should provide lives of positive
>>value not only for the cattle themselves, but also all the wildlife that
>>benefits from the environment. I believe it's safe to say that wildlife benefit
>>more from grass raised cattle farming than they do from soybean farming and rice
>>farming.
>

>He has no less argument

He has produced no argument at all Goober. Not a single example to back up
his claim.

[dh]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
>That's good.

If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
positive value, Goo?

>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>it justifies eating them. It doesn't.

For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
lives into consideration.

>The justification has to come
>from elsewhere.

Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

[dh]

Pigs are sort of a sad case and unfortunately I don't believe many of them
have much positive value to their lives. They live on concrete and don't get to
root and search for food, which is a strong instinct in them. They do get to
satisfy that to some degree by nosing around in their feed though. Boredom is a
big factor for pigs because they are smart being omnivores, so they have
stronger urges to do something than grazing beasts who are content to just stand
around and eat, or lie down and chew cud. They also tend to be aggressive making
things hard on each other.

On a happier note as I've mentioned to these eliminationists in aaev, many
livestock animals do appear to live decent lives of positive value...pretty much
all of them except caged commercial laying hens and maybe most pigs, imo. Most
dairy cows seem to have good lives, though veal tend to get a bad time of it.
Most beef cattle seem to have decent lives, spending the first several months
nursing from and then grazing with their mothers. Later when they're sent to the
feel lots they get to eat a lot of grain, which is what cattle like to do most
of all. Broiler chickens seem to have decent lives in general, though short, and
their parents are kept in cage free houses and live for a couple of years. The
parents of commercial laying hens are also kept cage free because cages make for
poor breeding results, but unfortunately most commercial laying hens in the US
are kept in cages which are imo very much overly restrictive for any type
creature, as well as encouraging to a horrible type of violence and suffering. I
encourage you to buy cage free eggs, free range or not doesn't really matter,
but cage free of any sort works against the horrible cage method of commercial
egg production. I'm certainly not the only egg consumer opposed to it either.
Some places in Europe have made it illegal to use the cage method, and there's
no doubt in my mind it was done for good reason. I would like to see it ended in
the US voluntarily, but that could not happen unless enough consumers become
opposed to the cage method and pay the extra price for cage free. That's what I
do, and again I encourage you to buy them in oppositition to the cage method.
They're more expensive then cage eggs--sometimes twice as much--but to me it's
worth it to spend that little bit of extra money against those damn horrible
cages.

[dh]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".

I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
value imo.

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

"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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - 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

""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"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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

"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

"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

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - 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 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

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon aka Bumbledork the Clown,
attempted to bullshit:


>>>

>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
>>> the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals?
>>

>> The animals lives have no moral meaning. If the animals never exist and therefore never "get to experience life", that has no meaning.
>

> He has produced

You have produced no argument at all showing that the animals' lives
have meaning.

[George Plimpton]

Bumbledork the idiot clown and cousin-fucking redneck lied:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>

>> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,

>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>
> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not

It doesn't. That has been proved conclusively.


>> The justification has to comefrom elsewhere.

>
> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
> have to kill humans and

Show it.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison admitted he has no concern for animal welfare:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> Pigs are sort of a sad case and unfortunately I don't believe many of them
> have much positive value to their lives. They live on concrete and don't get to
> root and search for food, which is a strong instinct in them.
>

> But I eat pork anyway, because I don't care about animal welfare at all.

[George Plimpton]

On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>

>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.n�t> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>
> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
> negative value to the animals.

How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid fucking redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid fuck:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck fuck.

>
> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
> value

1. You don't know
2. You don't care


>
> George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living

They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.

>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter

> its quality of live" - George Plimpton

>
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way

> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - George Plimpton

>
> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton

>
> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

> the existence." - George Plimpton

>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you

> ever wrote." - George Plimpton
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton

>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

> to experience life" - George Plimpton
>
> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton
>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton

>
> "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." - George Plimpton

>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

> their deaths" - George Plimpton

>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

> killing them." - George Plimpton

>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton

>
> "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." - George Plimpton

>
> "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" - George Plimpton

>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - George Plimpton

>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

> of the animals erases all of it." - George Plimpton

>
> "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." - George Plimpton

>
> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

> ethically superior choice." - George Plimpton

>
> "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" - George Plimpton

>
> "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." - George Plimpton

>
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."

> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>

>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nıt> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>
> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".

Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't. You
still conflate the related but distinct concepts of
existence and treatment, and now you've apparently added the
unknown of how the animals "feel about" all this.

[dh]

In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.

[dh]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of

>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>

>How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

He can't comprehend the concept of lives of either positive value or
negative value. You pretend that you can Goober, so do you think you can help
your brother Rupert to comprehend as well? No, you can't Goo. No one can because
his brain is unfit to handle the task.

>> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive

>>value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
>>know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
>>suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
>>value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
>>value imo.
>>
>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>

>>"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

>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

>>the existence." - 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
>>
>>""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"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>killing them." - Goo

>>
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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

>>
>>"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

>>
>>"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

>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>ethically superior choice." - 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 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

[George Plimpton]

No.

"Getting to experience life" is of no meaning or value to animals.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>> negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>> raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>> them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>> value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>> only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>> of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>> How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>> value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?
>
> He can't comprehend the concept of lives of

Nothing you write is beyond his comprehension. You just write shit.


All true statements below, except for the unethically mangled ones.

>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter

>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way

>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

>>> the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you

>>> ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."

>>> ZERO importance to it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

[dh]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:33:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:

>>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a �crit :

>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet <D...@nbc.n�t> wrote:
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>>That's good.
>>

>> If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
>>appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
>>positive value, Goo?
>>

>>>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>>>it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>>

>> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
>>only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
>>much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
>>eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
>>lives into consideration.
>>
>>>The justification has to come

>>>from elsewhere.
>>
>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals

>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>works against the elimination objective.
>

>Show it.

"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

""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

"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

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

ethically superior choice." - Goo

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> That's good.
>>>
>>> If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
>>> appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
>>> positive value, Goo?
>>>
>>>> Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>>>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>>>
>>> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
>>> only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
>>> much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
>>> eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
>>> lives into consideration.
>>>
>>>> The justification has to come
>>> >from elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>
>> Show it.
>
>

You didn't show it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared

You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
ideas.

[dh]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>

>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. pointed out:

>>>
>>>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>>>

>>>>"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

>>>>
>>>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

>>>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

>>>>
>>>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

>>>>the existence." - 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
>>>>
>>>>""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"
>>>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>>>killing them." - Goo

>>>>
>>>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

>>>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

>
>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

>
>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"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

>
>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo

[dh]

>dh quoted Goo:

>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>

>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>
>>>Show it.
>>

>>"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
>>
>>""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
>>
>>"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
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>

>You didn't show it.

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because

considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the

elimination objective, Goo.

[dh]

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:

> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
> elimination objective, Goo.

Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:

> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
> positive value to them

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

[George Plimpton]

On 7/12/2012 12:05 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The statements below are all true, except for the obvious forgeries.

>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter

>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way

>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

>>>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

>>>>> the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you

>>>>> ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

>>>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

>>>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>>
>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to think

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to think

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison shit in his panties:

>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>>>
>>>> Show it.
>>>
>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter

>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of

>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing

>>> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting

>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>

The one below is not a quote.

>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> You didn't show it.
>
> I showed that

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

[George Plimpton]

>> You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
>> is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
>> ideas.
>

> The fact

Not a fact.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>> that life still has positive value to them

It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> exist.

That's a logical point.

> You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid
of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against
the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
-- Martin Luther (1533)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared

>>You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
>>is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
>>ideas.

> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
>actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
>animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
>regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.

Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
irrelevancies, huh? OK; HANL.

[dh]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>> positive value to them
>
>Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.

>life only has value to a being once they
>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.

[dh]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>> that life still has positive value to them
>
>It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>> exist.
>
>That's a logical point.

It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
"Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
over elimination.

[dh]

That is the position Rupert and you are in apparently.

>OK; HANL.

[dh]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
are most often of negative value, if any.

[dh]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>dh quoted Goo:
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show it.
>>>>
>>>>"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

>>>>
>>>>""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

>>>>
>>>>"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

>>>>
>>>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the

>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo

>>>
>>>You didn't show it.
>>

>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because

>>considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the

>>elimination objective, Goo.
>
>You

Goober as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with
yourself about any of your quotes then YOU need to try explaining HOW you want
people to think you think you do. But you can't even make an attempt Goob
because you agree with yourself about every bit of it. You agree with yourself
about every one of the quotes I presented, Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>>>>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>"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

>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter

>>>>>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant

>>>>>>the existence." - 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""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"
>>>>>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for

>>>>>>killing them." - Goo

>>>>>>
>>>>>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind

>>>>>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>

>>>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>

>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude

>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

>>>
>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>

>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing

>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

>>>
>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>

>It's a forgery - not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>> positive value to them
>>
>> Those people already exist,
>
> So do animals in similar positions.

Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
suggestion is neutral.

>> life only has value to a being once they
>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>
> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
> and which seem to be positive.

That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
no harm. Your "LoL" argument is circular, meaningless.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>
>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>
> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>
>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>> exist.
>>
>> That's a logical point.
>
> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago

It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in logic
which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
> future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
> It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
> lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
> potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
> That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
> lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
> aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
> that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
> and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
> are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
> "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
> feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
> over elimination.

That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)

[Dutch]

So list them.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700

I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
Animal Welfare.

I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).

(Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
brethren.)

The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I'm playing for my life. You're working for money."
-- Charles Milles Manson

[Dutch]

I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens. The
crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life" and
conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
animals getting to experience life. Also anyone who rejects his nonsense
is labelled as an "eliminationist".

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I don't see the need for taking pride in that, because the life
experience is merely incidental to being alive regardless of the
duration of one's life. I'm interested in learning more about the
motivations behind this expectation of taking pride in this way.

The "idea" that "those who don't consume animal products aren't
contributing directly" is a bit of a misnomer (I'm not pointing the
finger here, but just examining the idea for its own merits), for an
indirect contribution as a result of less demand for meat products is
logically expected to reduce the overall number of food animals being
raised for slaughter. The assumed causal effect is that fewer animals
should be mistreated in the context of fewer animals being raised for
slaughter, which is central to the total number of animals (based on
basic overall population counts) rather than a percentage (based on the intrinsic habits/policies of handlers).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Unfortunately, the people of Louisiana are not racists."
-- Dan Quayle

[dh]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:50:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist

Many of them have decent lives of positive value too, and imo the majority
of them do. Eliminationists are opposed to us taking those lives into
consideration though because providing billions of livestock animals with lives
of positive value works against the elimination objective. Nothing would be
worse for eliminationists than for all animals raised for food to have lives of
positive value and humane deaths, and for their consumers to be aware of it.
What could work against their hopes for elimination any more than that? Those
people not only are incapable of distinguishing between lives that seem to be of
negative value and those which seem to be of positive, but they're incapable of
recognising any livestock lives at all that appear to be of positive value. In
the following list of URLs most if not all of the animals pictured appear to
have lives of positive value imo, yet eliminationists can't recognise a single
one that appears to be of positive value to them. Can you?

http://www.agrabilityproject.org/images/clip_image002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearofthegoat/images/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2361808892_b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/leofoo/windows/images/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/images/goose%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02Jz3CK90Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/June-2007-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sarahpayton/Grass-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/bentleycellars.com/_uimages/GoldSheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/20050415_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERIMAGES/more%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve/_resources/sheep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.com/graphics/allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploads/images/Case_Studies/EE/Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/images/blog/bellsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/sheep_on_bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44105000/jpg/_44105757_bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/kitchen/2008_08_15-MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/images/upload/fullsize/2008-3-25-goats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi36/images/chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/KBF%20broilers%20hoop%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/countryliving/images/Geese-GARDEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/operators/logos/18059.jpg

[dh]

That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
value as well as those of positive value.

>The
>crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
>take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life"

Try presenting some example of me telling people they should take pride in
it. You can't meaning that you lied again, which is pretty much what you do. I
DO encourage people to give the animals' lives as much or more consideration
than their deaths though, which eliminationists hate because and only because
doing so works against the elimination objective.

>and
>conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
>animals getting to experience life.

� 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

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �

[dh]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:11:21 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>> positive value to them
>>>
>>> Those people already exist,
>>
>> So do animals in similar positions.
>
>Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
>breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
>advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
>lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
>place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
>suggestion is neutral.

To you people that is extremely significant, but to those of us who are not
misnomer addicts it's as meaningless as the fact that rocks aren't alive. The
fact that millions of animals will experience life in the future because humans
eat meat IS VERY significant, but the fact that veganism does nothing for
livestock is no more significant than the fact that dinosaurs are extinct. It's
the "best" that you people have, but meaningless to other people.

>>> life only has value to a being once they
>>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>
>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>> and which seem to be positive.
>
>That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
>that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
>doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
>eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
>might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
>no harm.

That's only the most significant thing to eliminationists.

>Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for millions of animals] argument
>is circular, meaningless.

ONLY to eliminationists. For people who honestly favor decent AW over
elimination lives of positive value for millions of animals is a VERY
significant aspect of the situation, in some part because it means AW
regulations are working successfully. The fact that you can't appreciate that
fact is one of the ways you reveal yourself.

[dh]

For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
some of us are able to.

[dh]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>> goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>>> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>
>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>>
>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> That's a logical point.
>>
>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>
>It is not a mistake in terminology

That's a blatant lie.

>, it is a fundamental error in logic
>which persists in your arguments to this day.
>
> and some people referred
>> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
>> future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
>> It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
>> lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
>> potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
>> That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
>> lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
>> aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
>> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
>> that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
>> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
>> and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
>> are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
>> "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
>> feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
>> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
>> over elimination.
>
>That's a lie, and you KNOW it,

YOU claimed that it made you feel dirty, and if it really did then the fact
that it made you feel dirty is what reveals that you favor AW over elimination.
If you did not, then there would be no reason for it to make you feel dirty.
Instead you would be glad for the animals when they have lives of positive
value, not feel dirty for thinking about it. The only reason to feel dirty would
be if you're opposed to them having those lives of positive value, which
apparently you are. Duh!

>both of us favor continuing to raise
>livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
>provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
>separate and distinct choices)

You certainly act like you favor elimination over AW by opposing
appreciation for when livestock experience lives of positive value. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to do that.

You know that the elimination position is not respected by people who truly
favor AW and you know eliminationists are not respected by us. THAT is why the
Goober and you pretend (very very poorly) that you're elimination opponents.
Trying to win the respect which you don't deserve, of people who truly do favor
AW over elimination. It doesn't work with me because I see ways you reveal
yourself, plus I've been on to your lame game since you first started trying to
pretend to be an elimination opponent and first began claiming to eat meat. You
honestly admitted you were an eliminationist to begin with, and then later began
to pretend that you eat meat and have a completely different pov.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>>> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>>> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>>> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>>
>> I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
>> of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
>> make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens.
>
> That's a blatant lie

Nope, it is the truth.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>>>>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>>>>> elimination objective, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
>>>> just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.
>>>
>>> There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
>>> you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
>>> are most often of negative value, if any.
>>
>> So list them.
>

<blah blah>

now stfu

[dh]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
>>including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
>>positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
>>appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
>>Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
>>like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
>>crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
>>to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
>>greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
>>some of us are able to.
>

><blah blah>

Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they don't
favor elimination.

[dh]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
>>value as well as those of positive value.
>

>Nope, it is the truth.

Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as
those of positive value. Why do you want to lie about that fact, can't you say?

[Dutch]

Stop lying, you don't believe I favor elimination, nobody does. You're
just use that as a convenient strawman to cover your inability to deal
with the legitimate criticism of your silly arguments.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:22:43 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>>>>> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>>>>> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>>>>> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
>>>> of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
>>>> make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
>>> value as well as those of positive value.
>>
>> Nope, it is the truth.
>
> Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as
> those of positive value.

Animal welfare is not what your position is about, that is a smokescreen.

[dh]

You were honest about the fact that you do when you began posting here:

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"

Later you began to pretend that you changed your pov completely to an AW
position, but I disbelieve you since you argue against appreciation for when
decent AW results in lives of positive value for millions of animals.

>nobody does. You're
>just use that as a convenient strawman to cover your inability to deal
>with the legitimate criticism of your silly arguments.

So far there hasn't been one yet. When I first began posting a dozen years
ago I was afraid there might eventually be, but by this time I've gotten pretty
comfortable with the idea that there won't. However, if you think you have one I
challenge you to present it now. Go:

[dh]

I encourage people to appreciate when decent AW AND OTHER THINGS result in
lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals, and you discourage
people from appreciating it.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>> positive value to them
>>
>> Those people already exist,
>
> So do animals in similar positions.

No. You're talking - you have *always* been blabbering - about "future
farm animals." Stop lying.

>> life only has value to a being once they
>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>
> I understand that

You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>>>>>>, and so is not a quote.
>>>
>>> If you want people to think you disagree with
>>

>> It's a forgery - not a quote.
>
> If you want people to think you disagree with

It's a forgery, Fuckwit. Proved. You're a liar and a forger.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show it.
>>>>>

>>>>> [snip mangled fake quotes]

>>>>
>>>> You didn't show it.
>>>
>>> I showed
>>

>> You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

>
> as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:09:06 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>>>>>>> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>>>>>>> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>>>>>>> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
>>>>>> of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
>>>>>> make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
>>>>> value as well as those of positive value.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it is the truth.
>>>
>>> Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as
>>> those of positive value.
>>
>> Animal welfare is not what your position is about, that is a smokescreen.
>
> I encourage people to appreciate

"Animal welfare is not what your position is about, that is a

smokescreen." That is a true statement, Fuckwit. You do not care at
all about animal welfare or "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" for
livestock animals. All you care about is that they exist in order for
you to consume them.

You're a fraud and a liar.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:05:40 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>>>>>>>>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>>>>>>>>> elimination objective, Goo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
>>>>>>>> just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
>>>>>>> you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
>>>>>>> are most often of negative value, if any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So list them.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
>>>>> including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
>>>>> positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
>>>>> appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
>>>>> Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
>>>>> like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
>>>>> crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
>>>>> to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
>>>>> greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
>>>>> some of us are able to.
>>>>
>>>> <blah blah>
>>>
>>> Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they don't
>>> favor elimination.
>>
>> Stop lying, you don't believe I favor elimination,
>
> You were honest about

Dutch does not favor the elimination of livestock, and you know it.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>

>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>>>>> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>>>>> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>>>>> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
>>>> of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
>>>> make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
>>> value as well as those of positive value.
>>
>> Nope, it is the truth.
>
> Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as

You do not care about animal welfare at all. You never have cared about it.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>

>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>>>>>>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>>>>>>> elimination objective, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
>>>>>> just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
>>>>> you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
>>>>> are most often of negative value, if any.
>>>>
>>>> So list them.
>>>
>>> For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
>>> including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
>>> positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
>>> appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
>>> Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
>>> like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
>>> crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
>>> to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
>>> greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
>>> some of us are able to.
>>
>> <blah blah>
>
> Those are just more things you people hate

We hate liars. You are a liar.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>>> goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>>>> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>

>>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>>
>>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>>>
>>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's a logical point.
>>>
>>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
>>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>>
>> It is not a mistake in terminology
>
> That's a blatant lie.

It's not. It was not a mistake at all, Fuckwit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, Fuckwit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.

[Rupert]

If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?

[George Plimpton]

The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, Fuckwit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.

This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?

[Rupert]

Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?

[George Plimpton]

He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. Fuckwit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. Fuckwit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.

[Rupert]

So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

[George Plimpton]

Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." fuckwittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".

He's just fucked. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:

> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.

[dh]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:52:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:25 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>dh quoted Goo:
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:

>>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Show it.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo

>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't show it.
>>>>

>>>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because

>>>>considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the

>>>>elimination objective, Goo.
>>>
>>>You
>>
>> Goober as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with
>>yourself about any of your quotes then YOU need to try explaining HOW you want
>>people to think you think you do. But you can't even make an attempt Goob
>>because you agree with yourself about every bit of it. You agree with yourself
>>about every one of the quotes I presented, Goo.

>
>You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

If you want anyone to think I'm lying Goob, it's up to YOU to try explaining
how you want them to think you think you disagree with yourself about ANY OF
your claims. Since you can't Goober, it's a clear sign that you do agree with
yourself about every one of your quotes and can't even pretend that you don't.

[dh]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:59 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>>>>>>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>>>>>>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>>>>>>>the existence." - 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>""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"
>>>>>>>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>>>>killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>>>>>>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>>>about all of it.

>>>>
>>>>>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>>>about all of it.

>>>>
>>>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>

>>>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>>>about all of it.

>>>>
>>>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>

>>>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>>>about all of it.

>>>
>>>It's a forgery - not a quote.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.

>
>It's a forgery, Fuckwit. Proved.

It's YOUR quote Goo, but if you want to pretend it's a forgery then try
presenting some reason to think so. Also Goob, if you want people to think you
think you disagree with yourself about any of your above quotes, then YOU need
to try explaining how you want them to think you do. Try now Goo. GO!:


(correct prediction: the Goober can't explain how he wants people to think he
thinks he disagrees with himself about any of his quotes that I share, because
he agrees with himself about every one of them)

[dh]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>

>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>> positive value to them
>>>
>>>Those people already exist,
>>
>> So do animals in similar positions.
>
>No.

LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
it's hilarious Goo.

>>>life only has value to a being once they
>>>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>

>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>>fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>>to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>>believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>>same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>>you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>>and which seem to be positive.

>
>You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>experience life" is not a benefit.

It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:


(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>>>>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>>>>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>>>>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>>>>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>>>>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show it.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> [snip mangled fake quotes]
>>>>>
>>>>> I showed that

>>>>
>>>> You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.
>>>

>>> as always if you want people to think
>>

>> You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.
>
> If you want anyone to think I'm lying

Everyone already does.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:



>>>>>

>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with
>>>>

>>>> It's a forgery - not a quote.
>>>
>>> If you want people to think you disagree with
>>

>> It's a forgery, Fuckwit. Proved.
>
> It's YOUR quote

Not anyone's quote, Goo. It's your ham-handed shitty editing job. It's
bullshit - not what anyone actually said.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:
>>

>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>

>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist,
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>

>> No. You're talking - you have *always* been blabbering - about "future farm animals." Stop lying.
>

> LOL!!! The idea that

You were *only* talking about future farm animals, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>

>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that

No.

>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit

No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, Fuckwit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, Fuckwit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, Fuckwit.

[George Plimpton]

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:

>> You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.
>
> If you want anyone to think I'm lying

Everyone already thinks you're lying, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>> It's a forgery, Fuckwit. Proved.
>
> It's YOUR quote

It's not a quote at all, Fuckwit. It's a forgery - proved.

[Rupert]

So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?

> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"?  He
> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." fuckwittery, because he
> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>

Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?

> He's just fucked.  He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot.  I
> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
> incapable of clear and logical thinking.

Why do you think I am psychotic, Ball?

[Rupert]

It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.

[George Plimpton]

*Everything* about Fuckwit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the fuck
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?

>> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
>> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
>> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
>> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." fuckwittery, because he
>> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>>
>
> Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?

Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? Fuckwit lies because
he's a fuckwitted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. Fuckwit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. In 13 years of fucking around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. Fuckwit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?

>> He's just fucked. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
>> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
>> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
>> incapable of clear and logical thinking.
>

> Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?

I thought we were talking about Fuckwit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?

[George Plimpton]

Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. The
first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
prevents their conception and birth. When it became apparent to me, in
the summer of 1999, that Fuckwit believes there *would* be some kind of
moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
to identify who or what would experience it. I was after him for over
nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
to him, one of which was the unborn animals. Finally, in August 2000,
some nine months later, he provided his classic example of fuckwittery:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. But why
wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
conceive of the answer? And what about all his other statements that
support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
or "pre-exist", in some sense? For example:

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
Fuckwit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
that haven't been conceived. How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
think they exist in some weird sense? How *else* could he say that
something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? It is
obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that Fuckwit
thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
before they are actually alive. Of course, it's always possible that he
isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
caught him in a different lie.

So, that takes care of lie #1: if we are to take him at his word that
it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. He
only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.

Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". We can see that that's a lie
first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
experiencing "unfairness". All of those statements demonstrate that he
considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. This is obvious
and beyond dispute.

The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
unconceived animals are "something".

Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
*explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

Fuckwit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
believe it. You *know* he believes it. The only reason you wish to
pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. That, Woopert, is
evidence of your psychosis.

[Rupert]

I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view. If
you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
him.

> >> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
> >> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"?  He
> >> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
> >> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." fuckwittery, because he
> >> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>
> > Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?
>
> Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot?  Fuckwit lies because
> he's a fuckwitted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
> of his trolling.  Fuckwit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
> he believes.  In 13 years of fucking around spewing his nonsense in
> Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
> his.  Fuckwit doesn't care about that.  He's just trolling, which is an
> essentially dishonest pastime.  If his basic purpose in participating in
> Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
> qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?
>

If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.

> >> He's just fucked.  He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
> >> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot.  I
> >> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
> >> incapable of clear and logical thinking.
>
> > Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?
>
> I thought we were talking about Fuckwit and his absurd, irrationally
> held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?

We were, but you also made the statement that I am psychotic, and I
was curious about what had led you to that conclusion.

[George Plimpton]

They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".

> If you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
> him.

You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.

>>>> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
>>>> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
>>>> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
>>>> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." fuckwittery, because he
>>>> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>>
>>> Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?
>>
>> Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? Fuckwit lies because
>> he's a fuckwitted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
>> of his trolling. Fuckwit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
>> he believes. In 13 years of fucking around spewing his nonsense in
>> Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
>> his. Fuckwit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
>> essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
>> Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
>> qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?
>>
>
> If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
> believe anything that he writes.

That doesn't follow.

>>>> He's just fucked. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
>>>> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
>>>> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
>>>> incapable of clear and logical thinking.
>>
>>> Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> I thought we were talking about Fuckwit and his absurd, irrationally
>> held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?
>
> We were,

Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.

[Rupert]

>         Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

>
>         If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
>         even more wrong to discourage them from ever
>         getting to experience life at all IMO.

>         Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.
If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
your arguments. I do not necessarily say this is the correct
interpretation; it just seems to me as good as any other. It seems
pretty weird to me to think that someone would claim not to believe
something because they knew it wasn't defensible and yet still believe
it. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

I don't hate you, I find you very amusing. I have never said that I
think that what you say isn't true, I have just called into question
your reasons for believing it. It's very interesting that you claim to
have an insight into the symptoms of psychiatric illness.

[George Plimpton]

He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.

> If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
> arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
> interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
> your arguments.

He wasn't. His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. He
wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
the same ones worded differently.

Fuckwit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


> I don't hate you

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.