Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Always put quotes around "vegan"
138 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Mar 15, 2012, 1:12:54 AM3/15/12
to
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
Mr.Smartypants
Mar 15, 2012, 12:00:35 PM3/15/12
to
On Mar 14, 11:12 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
You're just jealous, Gooberdoodle.
> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
Rupert
Mar 17, 2012, 4:05:41 AM3/17/12
to
On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
George Plimpton
Mar 17, 2012, 10:50:07 AM3/17/12
to
exaltation and sanctimony.
Rupert
Mar 17, 2012, 11:33:32 AM3/17/12
to
is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
exaltation and sanctimony.
George Plimpton
Mar 17, 2012, 3:00:57 PM3/17/12
to
On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>
>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>
> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> is inherently ugly, and
There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>
>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>
> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> is inherently ugly, and
and self-image of the so-called "vegan".
Dutch
Mar 17, 2012, 4:48:14 PM3/17/12
to
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them, two
reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the death
and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly part,
there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
Rupert
Mar 17, 2012, 6:33:21 PM3/17/12
to
Rupert
Mar 17, 2012, 6:35:18 PM3/17/12
to
On Mar 17, 9:48 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
I don't really have any way of knowing. You're presumably basing your
remarks on the usenet vegans you have met. I don't have any way of
knowing whether this says anything about the vegans I know. I also
don't know why I would care.
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
remarks on the usenet vegans you have met. I don't have any way of
knowing whether this says anything about the vegans I know. I also
don't know why I would care.
George Plimpton
Mar 17, 2012, 9:33:28 PM3/17/12
to
own ego gratification and self-exaltation.
Rupert
Mar 18, 2012, 4:07:05 AM3/18/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 18, 2012, 1:16:46 PM3/18/12
to
Rupert
Mar 18, 2012, 11:09:22 PM3/18/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 1:13:53 AM3/19/12
to
Rupert
Mar 19, 2012, 2:07:52 AM3/19/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 2:15:25 AM3/19/12
to
Rupert
Mar 19, 2012, 2:37:02 AM3/19/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 11:29:34 AM3/19/12
to
Rupert
Mar 19, 2012, 12:39:33 PM3/19/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 2:27:37 PM3/19/12
to
dh
Mar 19, 2012, 3:17:17 PM3/19/12
to
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:50:07 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, Goo wrote:
>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>
>False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>exaltation and sanctimony.
How do you want people to feel that your anti-consideration is superior to
>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>
>False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>exaltation and sanctimony.
having consideration for lives of positive value for livestock Goob? Rupert
might be able to help you with that, but he doesn't know what it means to have a
life of positive value instead of a life of negative value. The doesn't believe
the distinction between the two different types of situation means anything.
Maybe if you can help him comprehend what the distinction is and how it is
significant, he can help you figure out how refusing to consider lives of
positive value is superior to taking them into consideration.
dh
Mar 19, 2012, 3:18:55 PM3/19/12
to
same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov, which is even more evidence
to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to get
over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert STILL
can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think you
could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at least one
example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically unable to
accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 3:23:34 PM3/19/12
to
On 3/19/2012 12:17 PM, Fuckwit bullshitted pointlessly:
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>
>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>
> How do you want people to feel that your anti-consideration
No such thing as "anti-consideration", Fuckwit, you 13-year-long loser.
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>
>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>
> How do you want people to feel that your anti-consideration
dh
Mar 19, 2012, 3:47:38 PM3/19/12
to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo
you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
Dutch
Mar 19, 2012, 4:44:20 PM3/19/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:vh1fm716rir9udr8r...@4ax.com...
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
which is even more evidence
> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
> get
> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
> Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
> STILL
> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
> you
> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
> least one
> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
> unable to
> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
George Plimpton
Mar 19, 2012, 7:36:30 PM3/19/12
to
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, bestiality practitioner - blabbered:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
Below are all true.
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>
> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>
> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
Rupert
Mar 20, 2012, 1:31:39 AM3/20/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 20, 2012, 11:13:19 AM3/20/12
to
Rupert
Mar 20, 2012, 11:44:21 AM3/20/12
to
moment.
George Plimpton
Mar 20, 2012, 12:38:42 PM3/20/12
to
Rupert
Mar 20, 2012, 1:03:59 PM3/20/12
to
is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.
George Plimpton
Mar 20, 2012, 2:36:42 PM3/20/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 2:53:18 AM3/21/12
to
amusingly stupid.
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 2:58:57 AM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 3:08:00 AM3/21/12
to
why I asked the question. When you say that it "almost certainly would
not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
your mind about the matter?
Mr.Smartypants
Mar 21, 2012, 10:15:37 AM3/21/12
to
can't guarantee it so he probably won't answer your question.
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 10:55:02 AM3/21/12
to
> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> your mind about the matter?
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 12:12:27 PM3/21/12
to
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 12:19:04 PM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 12:27:12 PM3/21/12
to
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 1:13:47 PM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 1:59:31 PM3/21/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 2:36:43 PM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 2:40:03 PM3/21/12
to
did it for a couple of months back in 2007, then I quit it to go to
Shanghai and work at a place called the Sino-British College. Then I
finished my PhD and worked at Australian Catholic University for
eighteen months, then I lectured and tutored at Sydney University for
one semester and then I came to the University of Münster to do a post-
doc. The telemarketing job is old news, and you know this. And the
fact that I worked as a telemarketer for two months strikes me as
unimportant and uninteresting.
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 3:00:17 PM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 3:02:48 PM3/21/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 3:14:32 PM3/21/12
to
what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 3:22:10 PM3/21/12
to
arrogant and egotistical.
George Plimpton
Mar 21, 2012, 4:53:59 PM3/21/12
to
Message has been deleted
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 11:40:39 PM3/21/12
to
Rupert
Mar 21, 2012, 11:39:41 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 10:18 pm, Derek <re...@group.please> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> There must be an easy way to figure out how much walking area a goat
> has when tethered to the inside wall of a round enclosure measuring
> 30M in diameter with a 3M length of rope, but I can't find it.
Let theta be the angle subtended at the centre between the point at
which the goat is tethered and the furthest point south on the
circumference of the circle that the goat can reach.
3^2=15^2+15^2-2*15^2*cos theta by the cosine rule
cos theta=441/450
Now you want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 15, angle
2theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle
And you also want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 3, angle
pi-theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle
Are you saying they want an exact value? If they just want it to five
decimal places, say, you would just use the calculator at this point.
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> has when tethered to the inside wall of a round enclosure measuring
> 30M in diameter with a 3M length of rope, but I can't find it.
Let theta be the angle subtended at the centre between the point at
which the goat is tethered and the furthest point south on the
circumference of the circle that the goat can reach.
3^2=15^2+15^2-2*15^2*cos theta by the cosine rule
cos theta=441/450
Now you want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 15, angle
2theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle
And you also want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 3, angle
pi-theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle
Are you saying they want an exact value? If they just want it to five
decimal places, say, you would just use the calculator at this point.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 12:12:04 AM3/22/12
to
Fuckwit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that Fuckwit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as Fuckwit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.
I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect. Another is that they think they're all
Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it. It's hard to say which
is the more outrageously offensive defect. When someone suffers from
both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.
Mr.Smartypants
Mar 22, 2012, 1:15:19 AM3/22/12
to
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 3:58:12 AM3/22/12
to
> Another is that they think they're all
> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 5:28:34 AM3/22/12
to
and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 11:27:06 AM3/22/12
to
>> Another is that they think they're all
>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
>
> No, I don't.
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 11:37:10 AM3/22/12
to
suffer from this defect.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 11:38:21 AM3/22/12
to
> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.
They're suck-ups.
> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 11:48:06 AM3/22/12
to
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>>>> Another is that they think they're all
>>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
>>
>>> No, I don't.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 12:29:41 PM3/22/12
to
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 12:29:19 PM3/22/12
to
not preaching to the choir, I am talking to people who are about to
engage in experiments on animals. And I was offered that job, I did
not apply for it.
I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.
> >>>> Another is that they think they're all
> >>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
> >>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> >>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
>
> >>> No, I don't.
>
> >> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.
>
> !!!!!
>
interesting, so I ignored it.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 12:45:29 PM3/22/12
to
> I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.
>
>>>>>> Another is that they think they're all
>>>>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>>>>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>>>>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
>>
>>>>> No, I don't.
>>
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.
>>
>> !!!!!
>>
>
> I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
> interesting, so I ignored it.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 12:47:30 PM3/22/12
to
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 12:49:34 PM3/22/12
to
Check this out:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vegan&page=8
Look at number 51. I didn't write this, but whoever did clearly read
some of my posts to a.a.e.v./t.p.a./a.f.v.
Number 52 is pretty good, too.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vegan&page=8
Look at number 51. I didn't write this, but whoever did clearly read
some of my posts to a.a.e.v./t.p.a./a.f.v.
Number 52 is pretty good, too.
Rupert
Mar 22, 2012, 1:35:57 PM3/22/12
to
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 2:10:18 PM3/22/12
to
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.
dh
Mar 22, 2012, 4:21:11 PM3/22/12
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:vh1fm716rir9udr8r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>
>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>conscious
>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>two
>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>death
>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>part,
>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>
>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>> the
>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>
>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all, on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.
> which is even more evidence
>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>> get
>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>> Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>> STILL
>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>> you
>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>> least one
>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>> unable to
>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>
>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:vh1fm716rir9udr8r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>
>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>
>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>
>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>conscious
>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>two
>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>death
>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>part,
>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>
>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>> the
>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>
>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all, on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.
> which is even more evidence
>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>> get
>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>> Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>> STILL
>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>> you
>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>> least one
>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>> unable to
>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>
>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
dh
Mar 22, 2012, 4:21:49 PM3/22/12
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>
>Below are all true.
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>
Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
George Plimpton
Mar 22, 2012, 4:53:41 PM3/22/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:
>>>
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>> Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans
No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>> Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>
>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>
>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 1:32:38 AM3/23/12
to
friend of mine who has a PhD in ethics respected me as someone who is
knowledgeable about ethics. Your opinion on the matter is not very
important.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 1:56:06 AM3/23/12
to
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 2:05:22 AM3/23/12
to
ethics does not share.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 2:25:45 AM3/23/12
to
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 2:38:30 AM3/23/12
to
"unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.
I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
about it. I've also formally taken three courses about it at
undergraduate level. I've also attended a conference and some seminars
about it. Two people, one who has completed a PhD in ethics and one
who is currently doing a PhD in metaethics, regard me as someone who
is quite knowledgeable about moral philosophy and with whom one can
have an interesting discussion about it, and furthermore one of these
people recommended me for paid work giving a talk about the subject.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will. I don't really think
it is reasonable to call me an "unqualified goof" in the subject.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 2:53:26 AM3/23/12
to
advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 3:19:57 AM3/23/12
to
studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
mathematical logic and set theory but I am recognised in sci.logic as
being someone who is knowledgeable about those subjects, I have
submitted a paper for publication in that field, and I would be
perfectly competent to give paid lectures in those fields. Sometimes
it is about the competence you are able to demonstrate in a field, not
about whether you studied the subject under formal supervision. That
is obviously what happened in the case of my talks on ethics. The
director of lab studies at Sydney University was obviously pleased
with my presentation and the feedback the students gave on it and
repeatedly invited me back.
Dutch
Mar 23, 2012, 4:05:51 AM3/23/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:f02nm7phfdubippc9...@4ax.com...
Dutch
Mar 23, 2012, 4:08:00 AM3/23/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>>Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
No, he's not. You have taken the quotes completely out of context, so of
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>>Below are all true.
>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
course you are misconstruing them, plus you're an idiot, which complicates
things further.
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 3:14:03 AM3/23/12
to
It's not a question of being "entitled" to talk about it. You have not
undertaken formal postgraduate study of moral philosophy either but
you obviously think you are "entitled" to pontificate about it here.
If someone offers me some paid work giving a talk about ethics because
they think I might have something interesting to say, and I do not
misrepresent my qualifications at any stage of the process, then I am
perfectly "entitled" to take on the job.
The simple fact of the matter is that I have quite a good knowledge of
moral philosophy and can do that job just as well as someone who has
undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, just as I would
be in a good position to give lectures on mathematical logic and set
theory even though I am entirely self-taught in those subjects. You
can choose not to believe that if you wish. Your beliefs about the
matter don't strike me as being very interesting.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 11:02:59 AM3/23/12
to
either the intellectual or moral right to be wagging your finger in
anyone's face.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 11:04:52 AM3/23/12
to
obtain a Ph.D. in mathematics. If some medieval French literature twit
were to make that claim about mathematical logic and set theory, it
would be plausible (although not very believable), but not a Ph.D. in math.
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 4:39:34 PM3/23/12
to
and a lot of research mathematicians do not know very much about them.
I did do a course called "Set Theory and Topology" and another called
"Computability and Logic", but those did not take me very far.
"Computability and Logic" did not include first-order logic. I taught
myself first-order logic, intuitionistic logic, modal logic, proof
theory and model theory, and I read Gödel's 1931 paper, entirely by
myself. I also read Paul Cohen's "Set Theory and the Continuum
Hypothesis", Jech's "Set Theory", Machover's "Set Theory, Logic, and
Their Limitations", Potter's "Set Theory and its Philosophy", Drake's
"Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals", and much work by
Hugh Woodin and Peter Koellner, entirely by myself. That goes way
beyond what we covered in the set theory and topology course.
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 4:40:01 PM3/23/12
to
Rupert
Mar 23, 2012, 4:40:24 PM3/23/12
to
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 6:08:12 PM3/23/12
to
vegetarianism.
George Plimpton
Mar 23, 2012, 6:10:23 PM3/23/12
to
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vegan%20Breakfast)
Mr.Smartypants
Mar 23, 2012, 9:05:26 PM3/23/12
to
dh
Mar 26, 2012, 6:02:27 PM3/26/12
to
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.
>>on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
>>the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.
>>
>>> which is even more evidence
>>>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>>>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>>>> get
>>>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>>>> Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>>>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>>>> STILL
>>>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>>>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>>>> you
>>>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>>>> least one
>>>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>>>> unable to
>>>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>>>
>>>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
>>
>> There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
>>beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
>>doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
He flip-flops like you, so I was hoping you could help him. All these years
of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.
>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>of all,
>
>>of all,
>
>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.
>>on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
>>the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.
>>
>>> which is even more evidence
>>>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>>>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>>>> get
>>>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>>>> Anyway, fuck all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>>>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>>>> STILL
>>>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>>>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>>>> you
>>>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>>>> least one
>>>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>>>> unable to
>>>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>>>
>>>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
>>
>> There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
>>beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
>>doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.
dh
Mar 26, 2012, 6:04:58 PM3/26/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>
>No
You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>
>No
You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>
>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>
>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>
>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>
>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
dh
Mar 26, 2012, 6:08:19 PM3/26/12
to
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
><dh@.> wrote in message news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4o...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>
>No, he's not.
><dh@.> wrote in message news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4o...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.
>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>
>No, he's not.
Dutch
Mar 27, 2012, 1:51:49 PM3/27/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ohp1n7585rvkf8dis...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
>>>>spew.
>>>
>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most
>>> self-serving
>>>of all,
>>
>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>
> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving
Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.
>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
>>>>spew.
>>>
>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most
>>> self-serving
>>>of all,
>>
>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>
> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving
Dutch
Mar 27, 2012, 1:53:52 PM3/27/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:c0q1n79nj5ommt9q0...@4ax.com...
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2012, 3:04:25 AM3/28/12
to
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>
>>>> Below are all true.
>>>
>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>
>> No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>
> You say so
No.
>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>
> You're saying
No.
>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>
>>>> Below are all true.
>>>
>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>
>
> You say so
No.
>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>
> You're saying
>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>
>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>
>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>
>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>
>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
dh
Mar 28, 2012, 2:29:09 PM3/28/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.
. . .
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
>>>>
>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>>>of all,
>>>
>>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>>
>>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
>>>>
>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>>>of all,
>>>
>>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>>
>> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
>>only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>laying hens.
>
>>only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>laying hens.
>
>Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.
Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.
. . .
dh
Mar 28, 2012, 2:29:47 PM3/28/12
to
us so. LOL...you're disturbed that he revealed himself so clearly...LOL... To
you people the Goober is a hero dishonestly pretending to be anti-elimination in
his attempts to win the respect of true antis, when he's really very much in
favor of it. You admired the dishonesty so much that you're trying to get away
with it too, even though you suck worse at pretending than Goo does, and Goo sux
badly. This is only ONE of the ways the Goober has revealed himself.
dh
Mar 28, 2012, 2:35:01 PM3/28/12
to
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:04:25 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.
>>>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>
>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>
>No.
Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.
>>>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>
>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>
>No.
>>
>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>
Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.
>>>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>
>
>No.
Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.
>>>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2012, 2:46:02 PM3/28/12
to
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goober - lied:
>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>>
>> No.
>
> Here's a clue
No.
>>>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>
>>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>
>> No.
>
> Here's a clue for
No. What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice, not
a morally good choice, for people who confusedly fall for the "ar" tale.
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>>
>> No.
>
> Here's a clue
>>>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>
>>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>
>> No.
>
> Here's a clue for
a morally good choice, for people who confusedly fall for the "ar" tale.
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
Dutch
Mar 28, 2012, 3:26:54 PM3/28/12
to
<dh@.> wrote
> Having consideration can and does
Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
Dutch
Mar 28, 2012, 3:27:56 PM3/28/12
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:n3m6n7lmbvhvu0nei...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:c0q1n79nj5ommt9q0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4o...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>
>>>>No, he's not.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.
>
> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans
They should.
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:c0q1n79nj5ommt9q0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4o...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>
>>>>No, he's not.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.
>
> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages