Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Goo enjoys watching "disgusting animal combats".
18 views
Skip to first unread message
dh
Nov 5, 2012, 3:44:52 PM11/5/12
to
"disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching." - Goo
George Plimpton
Nov 5, 2012, 4:44:04 PM11/5/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, the convicted felon who has no consideration for
animal welfare, lied:
>
>
> "disgusting animal combats that Fuckwit David Harrison enjoys watching."
Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting, and you are sick and disgusting
and evil for watching them.
animal welfare, lied:
>
>
> "disgusting animal combats that Fuckwit David Harrison enjoys watching."
Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting, and you are sick and disgusting
and evil for watching them.
dh
Nov 6, 2012, 11:46:21 AM11/6/12
to
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching." - Goo
>
>Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, Goo?
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching." - Goo
>
What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, Goo?
George Plimpton
Nov 6, 2012, 12:26:07 PM11/6/12
to
On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>
> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>
Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
to the death. Are there others?
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 6, 2012, 1:04:09 PM11/6/12
to
ideas as do we all. Ideas like pet food cows, multiple Ruperts, Rupert
operating on newsgroups using written instructions.
You're hilarious when you're trying to be serious, Goo.
Rupert
Nov 7, 2012, 9:22:46 AM11/7/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 7, 2012, 10:03:02 AM11/7/12
to
Rupert
Nov 7, 2012, 10:14:19 AM11/7/12
to
stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
anything about dogfighting. And you yourself have expressed the view
that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
George Plimpton
Nov 7, 2012, 2:24:19 PM11/7/12
to
On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>>> When did he say that?
>>
>> A long time ago.
>
> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
> anything about dogfighting.
He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>>> When did he say that?
>>
>> A long time ago.
>
> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
> anything about dogfighting.
life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
> And you yourself have expressed the view
> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
where the spectators are concerned. They're there to watch an animal
die in a kind of contest.
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 7, 2012, 2:40:55 PM11/7/12
to
Rupert
Nov 8, 2012, 4:35:48 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>
> >>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>
> >>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>
> >>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
> >>>> to the death. Are there others?
>
> >>> When did he say that?
>
> >> A long time ago.
>
> > I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
> > stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
> > anything about dogfighting.
>
> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>
I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>
> >>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>
> >>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>
> >>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
> >>>> to the death. Are there others?
>
> >>> When did he say that?
>
> >> A long time ago.
>
> > I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
> > stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
> > anything about dogfighting.
>
> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>
the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
above.
> > And you yourself have expressed the view
> > that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>
> I don't recall ever saying that.
George Plimpton
Nov 8, 2012, 9:23:41 AM11/8/12
to
offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
as to why it was acceptable.
> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
> above.
>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
toreador.
Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
Rupert
Nov 8, 2012, 10:19:05 AM11/8/12
to
> > As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
> > roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
> > above.
>
> He did say it.
>
> >>> And you yourself have expressed the view
> >>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>
> >> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
>
> You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
>
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
> You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
>
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
see, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of stupidity are
totally unfounded.
Furthermore, it probably would be reasonable to infer from what you
wrote there that you do view the spectators differently; it's hard to
see how to make sense of it otherwise. But if you want to disavow
that, then that's fine.
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 9, 2012, 2:09:52 PM11/9/12
to
>
> You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
>
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In any case, there's no difference
> >> where the spectators are concerned. They're there to watch an animal
> >> die in a kind of contest.
Rupert made your stupidity apparent again, Goo. How do you feel about
> You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
>
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In any case, there's no difference
> >> where the spectators are concerned. They're there to watch an animal
> >> die in a kind of contest.
that?
George Plimpton
Nov 11, 2012, 10:20:37 PM11/11/12
to
"benefit" from existence - an existence they wouldn't have except that
they were bred to fight. All he ever did was deny participating in it.
>
>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>> above.
>>
>> He did say it.
>>
>
> Well, I was not able to find it with a Google search.
>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>>
>> You are so stupid:
>>
>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>> toreador.
>>
>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>
> As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
> there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
> see, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of stupidity are
> totally unfounded.
between cockfighting and bullfighting, and I neither said nor implied
there was. You lied.
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 12, 2012, 12:05:27 AM11/12/12
to
at. How do you feel about that, Goo?
Rupert
Nov 12, 2012, 1:46:14 PM11/12/12
to
>
>
> >>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
> >>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
> >>> above.
>
> >> He did say it.
>
> > Well, I was not able to find it with a Google search.
>
> You're less than thorough.
>
do so if you choose.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
> >>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>
> >>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>
> >> You are so stupid:
>
> >> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> >> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> >> toreador.
>
> >> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> >> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
> > As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
> > there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
> > see, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of stupidity are
> > totally unfounded.
>
> They're very well founded. There is not a meaningful ethical difference
> between cockfighting and bullfighting, and I neither said nor implied
> there was. You lied.
cockfighting and bullfighting, and as the record conclusively
demonstrates, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of lying are
completely baseless, as any idiot can see.
George Plimpton
Nov 12, 2012, 3:12:55 PM11/12/12
to
considers that a good thing.
>>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>>
>>>> You are so stupid:
>>
>>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>>>> toreador.
>>
>>>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>>>> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>>> As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
>>> there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
>>> see, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of stupidity are
>>> totally unfounded.
>>
>> They're very well founded. There is not a meaningful ethical difference
>> between cockfighting and bullfighting, and I neither said nor implied
>> there was. You lied.
>
> My statement was that you said there was a difference between
> cockfighting and bullfighting,
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 12, 2012, 7:04:48 PM11/12/12
to
make you feel when you do that?
Rupert
Nov 13, 2012, 6:21:50 AM11/13/12
to
of the institution of dogfighting. And I cannot find him ever making
any statement that he personally enjoys watching cockfighting or
dogfighting. You stated that he did make such an assertion. As far as
I can tell there is no evidence for this. I conjecture that it was a
fabrication on your part.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
> >>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>
> >>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>
> >>>> You are so stupid:
>
> >>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> >>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> >>>> toreador.
>
> >>>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>
> >>>> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>
> >>> As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
> >>> there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
> >>> see, I was absolutely correct. Your accusations of stupidity are
> >>> totally unfounded.
>
> >> They're very well founded. There is not a meaningful ethical difference
> >> between cockfighting and bullfighting, and I neither said nor implied
> >> there was. You lied.
>
> > My statement was that you said there was a difference between
> > cockfighting and bullfighting,
>
> Not a meaningful ethical difference.
of lying".
Derek
Nov 13, 2012, 8:49:46 AM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:21:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
You know fully of his participation in cockfighting and even
admonished him for it.
[start - Harrison]
> I'm not opposed to cock fighting using gaffs, and I did see that
> a decade or so ago.
People who watch cockfights for entertainment are disgusting.
[end]
Rupert April 16 2012 http://tinyurl.com/af9bu2w
>or dogfighting.
In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
[start - you]
>http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
accepts dog fighting.
wrote:
admonished him for it.
[start - Harrison]
> I'm not opposed to cock fighting using gaffs, and I did see that
> a decade or so ago.
People who watch cockfights for entertainment are disgusting.
[end]
Rupert April 16 2012 http://tinyurl.com/af9bu2w
>or dogfighting.
In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
[start - you]
>http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
accepts dog fighting.
Rupert
Nov 13, 2012, 9:53:13 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 2:49 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:21:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Thank you for the reference. I had forgotten about that.
> >or dogfighting.
>
> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> [start - you]
> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> David Harrison Dec 1 2009http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
doesn't support it. Anyway, thanks for the reference; that was helpful.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:21:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >or dogfighting.
>
> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> [start - you]
> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> accepts dog fighting.
Well, I'm pretty sure he has said on at least one occasion that he
> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> accepts dog fighting.
doesn't support it. Anyway, thanks for the reference; that was helpful.
Rupert
Nov 13, 2012, 11:17:17 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 2:49 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:21:50 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>
> >or dogfighting.
>
> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> [start - you]
> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> David Harrison Dec 1 2009http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
> >or dogfighting.
>
> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> [start - you]
> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> accepts dog fighting.
If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> accepts dog fighting.
saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
thinks the difference is.
Derek
Nov 13, 2012, 1:33:09 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
and having decent lives."
David Harrison Aug 15 2005 http://tinyurl.com/95b8p
He justifies his participation in cock fighting on the basis
that he provides those fighting birds with decent lives. He
justifies his consumption of meat on the same basis, too.
>> >or dogfighting.
>>
>> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
>> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
>> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
>> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>>
>> [start - you]
>> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
been able to explain to anyone's satisfaction why arranged
animal combat is morally permissible for one type of animal
only. He's never been able to coherently explain why his
argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
wrote:
though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
and having decent lives."
David Harrison Aug 15 2005 http://tinyurl.com/95b8p
He justifies his participation in cock fighting on the basis
that he provides those fighting birds with decent lives. He
justifies his consumption of meat on the same basis, too.
>> >or dogfighting.
>>
>> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
>> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
>> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
>> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>>
>> [start - you]
>> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>>
>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>> accepts dog fighting.
>
>If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>thinks the difference is.
He's always tried to deny his approval of it, but he's never
>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>> accepts dog fighting.
>
>If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>thinks the difference is.
been able to explain to anyone's satisfaction why arranged
animal combat is morally permissible for one type of animal
only. He's never been able to coherently explain why his
argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 13, 2012, 2:34:54 PM11/13/12
to
Rupert
Nov 13, 2012, 2:59:21 PM11/13/12
to
On 13 Nov., 19:33, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >> Rupert April 16 2012http://tinyurl.com/af9bu2w
distinction, but obviously the reality is that he does in fact draw a
distinction.
It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
morally permitted. There may be no coherent basis for this combination
of views of his, but it looks like they are his views, and he has
tried to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
Ball has previously expressed the view that there is a "difference"
between cockfighting and bullfighting. He is now trying to pretend
that he didn't mean that there was any significant ethical difference,
but that is rather implausible. He should instead be honest and just
say that he has changed his mind.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>
> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
> and having decent lives."
> David Harrison Aug 15 2005http://tinyurl.com/95b8p
> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
> and having decent lives."
>
> He justifies his participation in cock fighting on the basis
> that he provides those fighting birds with decent lives. He
> justifies his consumption of meat on the same basis, too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >or dogfighting.
>
> >> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> >> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> >> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> >> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> >> [start - you]
> >> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> >> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> >> David Harrison Dec 1 2009http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
> He justifies his participation in cock fighting on the basis
> that he provides those fighting birds with decent lives. He
> justifies his consumption of meat on the same basis, too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >or dogfighting.
>
> >> In response to a link you provided from Francione, Harrison
> >> responded to it by saying it's wrong to refer to organised
> >> animal fights as a form of animal torture, on the basis that
> >> those animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> >> [start - you]
> >> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> >> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> >> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >> accepts dog fighting.
>
> >If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
> >saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
> >thinks the difference is.
>
> He's always tried to deny his approval of it, but he's never
> been able to explain to anyone's satisfaction why arranged
> animal combat is morally permissible for one type of animal
> only. He's never been able to coherently explain why his
> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
> >> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >> accepts dog fighting.
>
> >If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
> >saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
> >thinks the difference is.
>
> He's always tried to deny his approval of it, but he's never
> been able to explain to anyone's satisfaction why arranged
> animal combat is morally permissible for one type of animal
> only. He's never been able to coherently explain why his
> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
distinction, but obviously the reality is that he does in fact draw a
distinction.
It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
morally permitted. There may be no coherent basis for this combination
of views of his, but it looks like they are his views, and he has
tried to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
Ball has previously expressed the view that there is a "difference"
between cockfighting and bullfighting. He is now trying to pretend
that he didn't mean that there was any significant ethical difference,
but that is rather implausible. He should instead be honest and just
say that he has changed his mind.
Derek
Nov 13, 2012, 3:47:01 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:21 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> >> Rupert April 16 2012 http://tinyurl.com/af9bu2w
Of course, but you're about to change that opinion in a few
lines further down the page.
> but obviously the reality is that he does in fact draw a
>distinction.
No, the reality is that he does not. Simply claiming there is
one doesn't draw one.
>It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>morally permitted.
good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
favour of dog fighting.
>There may be no coherent basis for this combination
>of views of his,
You're right; there isn't one. "It's perfectly fine to say that he
hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>and he has tried
but utterly failed
>to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
>making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
And did he explain it to your satisfaction, Rupert? Are you
satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
distinction between the two?
wrote:
>>
>> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
>> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
>> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
>> and having decent lives."
>> David Harrison Aug 15 2005 http://tinyurl.com/95b8p
>> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
>> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
>> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
>> and having decent lives."
lines further down the page.
> but obviously the reality is that he does in fact draw a
>distinction.
one doesn't draw one.
>It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>morally permitted.
"It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
favour of dog fighting.
>There may be no coherent basis for this combination
>of views of his,
has no basis for drawing the distinction"
>but it looks like they are his views,
No, I don't believe it looks like they are. He cannot possibly
hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>and he has tried
but utterly failed
>to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
>making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
distinction between the two?
dh
Nov 13, 2012, 4:33:58 PM11/13/12
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:19:05 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
to cock fighting too before I learned about it. I became more opposed to dog
fighting after learning some things about it though, so the Goober is extra
stupidly wrong as well as lying to you, and very blatantly too btw.
>> > As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>> > roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>> > above.
>>
>> He did say it.
>>
>
>Well, I was not able to find it with a Google search.
You might do better to look for examples of me saying I'm opposed to it than
examples of what Goo's lying about.
>> >>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>> >>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>> >> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>>
>> You are so stupid:
>>
>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>> toreador.
>>
>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>
>As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
>there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
>see, I was absolutely correct.
So the Goober lied again. How not unusual for Goo. The "differences" the
stupid Goober brought up are stupid too. Can you figure out what's stupid about
them?
>Your accusations of stupidity are
>totally unfounded.
Could they also be based on more blatant lies? Or are they based on less
obvious lies?
>Furthermore, it probably would be reasonable to infer from what you
>wrote there that you do view the spectators differently; it's hard to
>see how to make sense of it otherwise.
There usually ends up being between little and nothing that makes sense when
you get down to stupidities on the Goobal level.
>But if you want to disavow
>that, then that's fine.
LOL... From previous experiences with the Goober, I'm predicting that he
can't even make an attempt to meet your challenge, and it will defeat him as
completely as possible. And if not, we might be in for some good fun with more
Goobal stupidities and self outstupidifiactions, often by the idiotic blatancy
of his own dishonesties.
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> >>>>> When did he say that?
>>
>> >>>> A long time ago.
>>
>> >>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>> >>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>> >>> anything about dogfighting.
>>
>> >> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>> >> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>
>> > I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>> > the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>> > him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>> > anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>
>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>> as to why it was acceptable.
>>
>
>Well, if so he definitely changed his mind afterwards.
Goo's lying to you. I've always been opposed to dog fighting. I was opposed
>> >>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> >>>>> When did he say that?
>>
>> >>>> A long time ago.
>>
>> >>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>> >>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>> >>> anything about dogfighting.
>>
>> >> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>> >> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>
>> > I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>> > the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>> > him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>> > anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>
>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>> as to why it was acceptable.
>>
>
>Well, if so he definitely changed his mind afterwards.
to cock fighting too before I learned about it. I became more opposed to dog
fighting after learning some things about it though, so the Goober is extra
stupidly wrong as well as lying to you, and very blatantly too btw.
>> > As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>> > roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>> > above.
>>
>> He did say it.
>>
>
>Well, I was not able to find it with a Google search.
examples of what Goo's lying about.
>> >>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>> >>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>> >> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54ca...
>>
>> You are so stupid:
>>
>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>> toreador.
>>
>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>> That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>
>As we can see above, my statement was that you expressed the view that
>there is a difference between bullfighting and cockfighting. As we
>see, I was absolutely correct.
stupid Goober brought up are stupid too. Can you figure out what's stupid about
them?
>Your accusations of stupidity are
>totally unfounded.
obvious lies?
>Furthermore, it probably would be reasonable to infer from what you
>wrote there that you do view the spectators differently; it's hard to
>see how to make sense of it otherwise.
you get down to stupidities on the Goobal level.
>But if you want to disavow
>that, then that's fine.
can't even make an attempt to meet your challenge, and it will defeat him as
completely as possible. And if not, we might be in for some good fun with more
Goobal stupidities and self outstupidifiactions, often by the idiotic blatancy
of his own dishonesties.
dh
Nov 13, 2012, 4:36:30 PM11/13/12
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:23:41 -0800, Goo puled:
>On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
that you are, since I've pointed out countless times that I'm opposed to dog
fighting and cock fighting with the knife. They DO get to experience life
because of it Goo, and you're a moron if you think that's not true. But Goob, I
believe the majority of the time the dogs' lives overall are of negative value
not positive, plus I believe there's also more suffering involved with the
animals in dog fighting than in cock fighting. A concept you may be too stupid
to comprehend Goo, and if so that's the only way you could honestly believe I
don't appreciate such distinctions. Only if you yourself are so stupid that you
can not Goob, could you honestly believe that I don't either.
>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>> above.
>
>He did say it.
LOL!!! That's a blatant lie Goo. I've also pointed out that I've never even
seen a dog fight you lying Goober.
>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>
>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>
>You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry, and
exactly HOW that artistry is a significant aspect of the ethics associated with
it. Go:
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
And then do you think the bull gets to live a long decent life because of it
Goob? Or mayb you think that happens only if the toreador dies Goo? If you think
instead the bull is slaughtered, then what difference do you think it makes if
he gets a jab at his tormentor Goob??? Explain how you think what a bull gets
out of goring the toreador is better than what a rooster gets out of killing his
opponent Goo. Go:
>That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
By that wussery are you sneaking in a maundering pule that you don't view
the spectators any differently Goob, or is it something even more wussile than
that? Or don't you have any idea, Goo?
>On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching." - Goo
>>>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>
>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>
>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>
>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>
>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>
>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>
>>
>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>
>He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>as to why it was acceptable.
You're lying Goober and I don't believe you're honestly too stupid to know
>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>
>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>
>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>
>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>
>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>
>>
>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>
>He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>as to why it was acceptable.
that you are, since I've pointed out countless times that I'm opposed to dog
fighting and cock fighting with the knife. They DO get to experience life
because of it Goo, and you're a moron if you think that's not true. But Goob, I
believe the majority of the time the dogs' lives overall are of negative value
not positive, plus I believe there's also more suffering involved with the
animals in dog fighting than in cock fighting. A concept you may be too stupid
to comprehend Goo, and if so that's the only way you could honestly believe I
don't appreciate such distinctions. Only if you yourself are so stupid that you
can not Goob, could you honestly believe that I don't either.
>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>> above.
>
>He did say it.
seen a dog fight you lying Goober.
>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>
>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>
>You are so stupid:
>
> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> toreador.
to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry, and
exactly HOW that artistry is a significant aspect of the ethics associated with
it. Go:
> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
Goob? Or mayb you think that happens only if the toreador dies Goo? If you think
instead the bull is slaughtered, then what difference do you think it makes if
he gets a jab at his tormentor Goob??? Explain how you think what a bull gets
out of goring the toreador is better than what a rooster gets out of killing his
opponent Goo. Go:
>That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
the spectators any differently Goob, or is it something even more wussile than
that? Or don't you have any idea, Goo?
dh
Nov 13, 2012, 4:38:08 PM11/13/12
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 01:35:48 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>Derek made the inference that
>the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
I've pointed out to the lying Goober more than once that I'm opposed to dog
fighting AND cock fighting with the knife. I've only seen a few dozen fights in
about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
far. Possibly with the knif as well but I've never seen it. The people I've
talked to who have and are in support of gaff fighting have all been opposed to
the knife though, so from that I'm guessing I would be too. People like yourself
and the Goober can't make any distinction, and from my pov that does nothing to
make your pov superior. I'm opposed to dog fighting but your hero Goob can't
even comprehend how there COULD BE distinctions between that and cockfighting,
which is why the stupid Goober is stupid enough to believe I support dog
fighting TOO, IF!!! the Goober really is stupid enough to believe I do after
having told him I don't a number of times. You're coming in on the ass end of
this one, and of course as I pointed out you were "introduced" to the topic by
blatant lies from Goo.
>As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>above.
I've never seen a dog fight and damned sure never want to, but Goo lies
about it. Why does Goo lie to you about that? I don't especially like even gaff
fights, though lots of people do. I like seeing all the beautiful proud birds in
top condition and enjoy the excitement at the beginning of a fight while both
birds are still in good shape, but later when it gets down to the drag and they
can barely keep going I don't enjoy that. But! I realise it's better than
hanging them by their feet and cutting their throats like broiler chickens, and
that they are only in the pit as long as they willingly want to keep fighting.
Also I appreciate a number of other things about it that you'll never be able
to, but those are a couple of the main significant aspects imo.
>> > And you yourself have expressed the view
>> > that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>
>> In any case, there's no difference
>> where the spectators are concerned. They're there to watch an animal
>> die in a kind of contest.
LOL!!! That's hilarious. It's like saying people like to watch football for
the teams that lose instead of win...LOL....
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> >>> When did he say that?
>>
>> >> A long time ago.
>>
>> > I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>> > stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>> > anything about dogfighting.
>>
>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>
>
>I couldn't see him saying that anywhere.
Goo's lying to you, as usual/always.
>> >>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> >>> When did he say that?
>>
>> >> A long time ago.
>>
>> > I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>> > stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>> > anything about dogfighting.
>>
>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>
>
>I couldn't see him saying that anywhere.
>Derek made the inference that
>the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
fighting AND cock fighting with the knife. I've only seen a few dozen fights in
about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
far. Possibly with the knif as well but I've never seen it. The people I've
talked to who have and are in support of gaff fighting have all been opposed to
the knife though, so from that I'm guessing I would be too. People like yourself
and the Goober can't make any distinction, and from my pov that does nothing to
make your pov superior. I'm opposed to dog fighting but your hero Goob can't
even comprehend how there COULD BE distinctions between that and cockfighting,
which is why the stupid Goober is stupid enough to believe I support dog
fighting TOO, IF!!! the Goober really is stupid enough to believe I do after
having told him I don't a number of times. You're coming in on the ass end of
this one, and of course as I pointed out you were "introduced" to the topic by
blatant lies from Goo.
>As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>above.
about it. Why does Goo lie to you about that? I don't especially like even gaff
fights, though lots of people do. I like seeing all the beautiful proud birds in
top condition and enjoy the excitement at the beginning of a fight while both
birds are still in good shape, but later when it gets down to the drag and they
can barely keep going I don't enjoy that. But! I realise it's better than
hanging them by their feet and cutting their throats like broiler chickens, and
that they are only in the pit as long as they willingly want to keep fighting.
Also I appreciate a number of other things about it that you'll never be able
to, but those are a couple of the main significant aspects imo.
>> > And you yourself have expressed the view
>> > that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>
>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>
>> In any case, there's no difference
>> where the spectators are concerned. They're there to watch an animal
>> die in a kind of contest.
the teams that lose instead of win...LOL....
dh
Nov 13, 2012, 4:38:54 PM11/13/12
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:40:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
fighting with the knife a number of times. So this brings us to (at least) two
fun with Goo's stupidity type questions:
1. is Goo still stupid enough to believe I'm in favor of dog fighting even after
I've pointed out that I make a distinction between it and cock fighting with
gaffs?
2. is the Goober himself too stupid to comprehend that there even could be
significant enough distinctions between dogs and chickens that there could be a
similar distinction between whether or not it's cruel to fight them?
My guess is that Goo honestly is too stupid to appreciate any distinction
between them and between gaffs and the knife. LOL...and from what I've seen so
far the stupid Goober has no clue even how to TRY to consider the ethics
associated with bull fighting, much less could he appreciate distinctions
between that and dog fighting or/and cock fighting.
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Nov 7, 8:03 am, Goo wrote:
>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>> >> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> > When did he say that?
>>
>> A long time ago.
>
>
>Find it and show it to us, you stupid f***.
I've pointed out to the Goober that I'm opposed to dog fighting and cock
>> >> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - enjoys watching." - George Plimpton
>>
>> >>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>
>> >>> What types of disgusting animal combats do I enjoy watching, Prof. Plimpton?
>>
>> >> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>> >> to the death. Are there others?
>>
>> > When did he say that?
>>
>> A long time ago.
>
>
>Find it and show it to us, you stupid f***.
fighting with the knife a number of times. So this brings us to (at least) two
fun with Goo's stupidity type questions:
1. is Goo still stupid enough to believe I'm in favor of dog fighting even after
I've pointed out that I make a distinction between it and cock fighting with
gaffs?
2. is the Goober himself too stupid to comprehend that there even could be
significant enough distinctions between dogs and chickens that there could be a
similar distinction between whether or not it's cruel to fight them?
My guess is that Goo honestly is too stupid to appreciate any distinction
between them and between gaffs and the knife. LOL...and from what I've seen so
far the stupid Goober has no clue even how to TRY to consider the ethics
associated with bull fighting, much less could he appreciate distinctions
between that and dog fighting or/and cock fighting.
Dutch
Nov 13, 2012, 5:42:47 PM11/13/12
to
dh@. wrote:
> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
> about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
> the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
> far.
Shooting someone through the head while they sleep is less cruel than
> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
> about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
> the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
> far.
beating them to death with a bat, but if they are attacking you it is
more justifiable. Try to connect the dots..
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 1:41:00 AM11/14/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, animal combat fan, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - enjoys watching."
I'm not lying. It's *exactly* what you said: you said the dogs "at
least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
not for the dogfighting. You approve of dogfighting.
>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>> above.
>>
>> He did say it.
>
> LOL!!! That's a blatant lie
No.
>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>
>> You are so stupid:
>>
>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>> toreador.
>
> Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
> to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry,
*I* don't think it's a material difference, Fuckwit - you stupid fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - enjoys watching."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>
>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>
>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>
>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>
>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>
>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>> as to why it was acceptable.
>
> You're lying Prof. Plimpton and
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>
>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>
>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>
>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>
>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>
>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>> as to why it was acceptable.
>
I'm not lying. It's *exactly* what you said: you said the dogs "at
least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
not for the dogfighting. You approve of dogfighting.
>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>> above.
>>
>> He did say it.
>
> LOL!!! That's a blatant lie
>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>
>> You are so stupid:
>>
>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>> toreador.
>
> Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
> to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry,
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 14, 2012, 3:17:57 AM11/14/12
to
>
> >> You are so stupid:
>
> >> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> >> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> >> toreador.
>
> > Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
> > to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry,
>
> *I* don't think it's a material difference, Fuckwit - you stupid fuckwit.
Sooner or later Goobs will decide and announce his ideas about this
> >> You are so stupid:
>
> >> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
> >> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
> >> toreador.
>
> > Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
> > to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry,
>
> *I* don't think it's a material difference, Fuckwit - you stupid fuckwit.
are "fuckwitted and wrong".
Rupert
Nov 14, 2012, 4:58:35 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 13, 9:47 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:21 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> Rupert April 16 2012http://tinyurl.com/af9bu2w
You obviously draw a moral distinction between buying meat and buying
vegetables, right? You have given us explanations of what you think
the basis for that distinction is. Now, someone might say "Actually,
you have no coherent basis for drawing that that distinction; the
logic of your position really forces you to conclude that buying
vegetables is morally wrong". That's a claim that can then be debated.
But however that debate might go, the obvious reality is that, for the
moment anyway, you *do* in fact draw a distinction between buying meat
and buying vegetables, and it would be silly for anyone to pretend
otherwise.
In the case of David Harrison, it is clear that the reality is that he
does in fact draw a distinction between cockfighting and dogfighting,
and he has attempted to say something about what he thinks the grounds
for drawing that distinction. Now, you may perhaps think "In constrast
to the situation with me explaining why I draw a distinction between
buying meat and buying vegetables, David Harrison is extraordinarily
incompetent at presenting a valid basis for making a distinction, and
in fact his argument completely lacks merit". That's a perfectly
legitimate claim, which you can debate about with David Harrison if
you have any interest in doing so, but it doesn't change the reality
that he *does* in fact draw a distinction, however indefensible his
view might be, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise.
> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
> >morally permitted.
>
> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
> favour of dog fighting.
>
Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
logically follows.
> >There may be no coherent basis for this combination
> >of views of his,
>
> You're right; there isn't one. "It's perfectly fine to say that he
> has no basis for drawing the distinction"
>
> >but it looks like they are his views,
>
> No, I don't believe it looks like they are. He cannot possibly
> hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
> not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>
Well, you are welcome to believe that if you want to; I'm not aware of
rational grounds for such a belief.
> >and he has tried
>
> but utterly failed
>
> >to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
> >making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
>
> And did he explain it to your satisfaction, Rupert? Are you
> satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
> distinction between the two?
I read what he wrote very quickly and didn't give it too much thought.
I think it's complete nonsense to suggest that there's any distinction
between cockfighting and dogfighting, and I would be very surprised if
Harrison had written anything in defense of drawing such a distinction
which I would find persuasive on reflection.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:21 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>
> >> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
> >> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
> >> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
> >> and having decent lives."
> >> David Harrison Aug 15 2005http://tinyurl.com/95b8p
> >> "I've raised hundreds of game chickens, and even
> >> though it's been about ten years I have hopes that
> >> some of them, and their descendants, are still alive
> >> and having decent lives."
vegetables, right? You have given us explanations of what you think
the basis for that distinction is. Now, someone might say "Actually,
you have no coherent basis for drawing that that distinction; the
logic of your position really forces you to conclude that buying
vegetables is morally wrong". That's a claim that can then be debated.
But however that debate might go, the obvious reality is that, for the
moment anyway, you *do* in fact draw a distinction between buying meat
and buying vegetables, and it would be silly for anyone to pretend
otherwise.
In the case of David Harrison, it is clear that the reality is that he
does in fact draw a distinction between cockfighting and dogfighting,
and he has attempted to say something about what he thinks the grounds
for drawing that distinction. Now, you may perhaps think "In constrast
to the situation with me explaining why I draw a distinction between
buying meat and buying vegetables, David Harrison is extraordinarily
incompetent at presenting a valid basis for making a distinction, and
in fact his argument completely lacks merit". That's a perfectly
legitimate claim, which you can debate about with David Harrison if
you have any interest in doing so, but it doesn't change the reality
that he *does* in fact draw a distinction, however indefensible his
view might be, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise.
> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
> >morally permitted.
>
> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
> favour of dog fighting.
>
extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
logically follows.
> >There may be no coherent basis for this combination
> >of views of his,
>
> You're right; there isn't one. "It's perfectly fine to say that he
> has no basis for drawing the distinction"
>
> >but it looks like they are his views,
>
> No, I don't believe it looks like they are. He cannot possibly
> hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
> not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>
rational grounds for such a belief.
> >and he has tried
>
> but utterly failed
>
> >to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
> >making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
>
> And did he explain it to your satisfaction, Rupert? Are you
> satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
> distinction between the two?
I think it's complete nonsense to suggest that there's any distinction
between cockfighting and dogfighting, and I would be very surprised if
Harrison had written anything in defense of drawing such a distinction
which I would find persuasive on reflection.
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 12:49:02 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:58:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 13, 9:47 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:21 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
[]
What you seem to be trying to establish here is that everyone can
successfully draw a distinction between two things just by voicing it, even
when they obviously fail to provide a coherent argument for accepting it.
But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
sense to me.
>> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>> >morally permitted.
>>
>> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
>> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
>> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
>> favour of dog fighting.
>
>Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
>extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
>logically follows.
Now be fair, Rupert. I was very careful to avoid that by writing, "there are
good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>> >There may be no coherent basis for this combination
>> >of views of his,
>>
>> You're right; there isn't one. "It's perfectly fine to say that he
>> has no basis for drawing the distinction"
>>
>> >but it looks like they are his views,
>>
>> No, I don't believe it looks like they are. He cannot possibly
>> hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
>> not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>
>Well, you are welcome to believe that if you want to; I'm not aware of
>rational grounds for such a belief.
>
>> >and he has tried
>>
>> but utterly failed
>>
>> >to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
>> >making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
>>
>> And did he explain it to your satisfaction, Rupert? Are you
>> satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
>> distinction between the two?
>
>I read what he wrote very quickly and didn't give it too much thought.
>I think it's complete nonsense to suggest that there's any distinction
>between cockfighting and dogfighting, and I would be very surprised if
>Harrison had written anything in defense of drawing such a distinction
>which I would find persuasive on reflection.
Then, if you doubt that he can defend drawing such a distinction, why
announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
wrote:
>On Nov 13, 9:47 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:59:21 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
successfully draw a distinction between two things just by voicing it, even
when they obviously fail to provide a coherent argument for accepting it.
But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
sense to me.
>> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>> >morally permitted.
>>
>> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
>> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
>> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
>> favour of dog fighting.
>
>Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
>extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
>logically follows.
good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>> >There may be no coherent basis for this combination
>> >of views of his,
>>
>> You're right; there isn't one. "It's perfectly fine to say that he
>> has no basis for drawing the distinction"
>>
>> >but it looks like they are his views,
>>
>> No, I don't believe it looks like they are. He cannot possibly
>> hold both without offering a satisfactory explanation. They're
>> not his views. He doesn't actually believe his bullshit.
>
>Well, you are welcome to believe that if you want to; I'm not aware of
>rational grounds for such a belief.
>
>> >and he has tried
>>
>> but utterly failed
>>
>> >to explain why he thinks that there is a coherent basis for
>> >making a distinction, in the very link which you provided.
>>
>> And did he explain it to your satisfaction, Rupert? Are you
>> satisfied that he formed a coherent basis for making a
>> distinction between the two?
>
>I read what he wrote very quickly and didn't give it too much thought.
>I think it's complete nonsense to suggest that there's any distinction
>between cockfighting and dogfighting, and I would be very surprised if
>Harrison had written anything in defense of drawing such a distinction
>which I would find persuasive on reflection.
announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
Rupert
Nov 14, 2012, 1:17:12 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 6:49 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:58:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Well, you're mistaken. I do not think that. What I think is that if it
is an obvious reality that someone believes that a valid distinction
exists, then it's silly to ignore than reality.
> But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
> bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
> that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
>
> Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
> you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
> between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
> to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
> sense to me.
>
This seems to be a different issue. I'm not expressing any support for
Harrison's argument. I'm saying that it's silly to ignore the reality
that he has in fact made the argument.
> >> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
> >> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
> >> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
> >> >morally permitted.
>
> >> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
> >> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
> >> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
> >> favour of dog fighting.
>
> >Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
> >extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
> >logically follows.
>
> Now be fair, Rupert. I was very careful to avoid that by writing, "there are
> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
> one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
> in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
> alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>
Well, I really don't see it. Why do you suppose that there are good
grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting, where's the
evidence?
The point is that he believes that the distinction exists, however
indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
word.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:58:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
is an obvious reality that someone believes that a valid distinction
exists, then it's silly to ignore than reality.
> But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
> bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
> that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
>
> Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
> you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
> between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
> to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
> sense to me.
>
Harrison's argument. I'm saying that it's silly to ignore the reality
that he has in fact made the argument.
> >> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
> >> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
> >> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
> >> >morally permitted.
>
> >> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
> >> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
> >> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
> >> favour of dog fighting.
>
> >Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
> >extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
> >logically follows.
>
> Now be fair, Rupert. I was very careful to avoid that by writing, "there are
> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
> one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
> in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
> alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>
grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting, where's the
evidence?
indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
word.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:39:21 PM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
>He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
are. That alone is more than you can appreciate. Being tied to a stake for life
is better for a rooster than for a dog too, again because of the nature of the
animal. YOU can't appreciate any differences, but that doesn't mean that no one
can.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:40:55 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:17:57 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 11:41 pm, Goo wrote:
>> dh challenged:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching."
Was it Goo who wrote about the artistry? If so was the Goober outstupiding
himself when he wrote it, or is he outstupiding himself now, or outstupiding
himself both times?
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 11:41 pm, Goo wrote:
>> dh challenged:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching."
himself when he wrote it, or is he outstupiding himself now, or outstupiding
himself both times?
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:41:31 PM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:41:00 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:36:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:23:41 -0800, Goo puled:
>>
>>>On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching." - Goo
you can't comprehend that much then you're definitely too stupid to try
discussing this topic.
>You approve of dogfighting.
No Goo. Sometimes it's better that no beings experience certain things from
my pov, and that is one of them. You're quite possibly too stupid to comprehend
that as well though Goob.
>>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>>> above.
>>>
>>>He did say it.
>>
Yes Goo, I have.
>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>>
>>>You are so stupid:
>>>
>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>>> toreador.
>>
>> Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:36:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:23:41 -0800, Goo puled:
>>
>>>On 11/8/2012 1:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 4:03 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 6:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:26 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2012 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:44:04 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:44:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>>
>>>He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>>>offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>>>as to why it was acceptable.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>>
>>>He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>>>offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>>>as to why it was acceptable.
>>
>> You're lying Goober and I don't believe you're honestly too stupid to know
>>that you are, since I've pointed out countless times that I'm opposed to dog
>>fighting and cock fighting with the knife. They DO get to experience life
>>because of it Goo, and you're a moron if you think that's not true. But Goob, I
>>believe the majority of the time the dogs' lives overall are of negative value
>>not positive, plus I believe there's also more suffering involved with the
>>animals in dog fighting than in cock fighting. A concept you may be too stupid
>>to comprehend Goo, and if so that's the only way you could honestly believe I
>>don't appreciate such distinctions. Only if you yourself are so stupid that you
>>can not Goob, could you honestly believe that I don't either.
>
>>that you are, since I've pointed out countless times that I'm opposed to dog
>>fighting and cock fighting with the knife. They DO get to experience life
>>because of it Goo, and you're a moron if you think that's not true. But Goob, I
>>believe the majority of the time the dogs' lives overall are of negative value
>>not positive, plus I believe there's also more suffering involved with the
>>animals in dog fighting than in cock fighting. A concept you may be too stupid
>>to comprehend Goo, and if so that's the only way you could honestly believe I
>>don't appreciate such distinctions. Only if you yourself are so stupid that you
>>can not Goob, could you honestly believe that I don't either.
>
>I'm not lying. It's *exactly* what you said: you said the dogs "at
>least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
>not for the dogfighting.
LOL...you stupid Goober, the dogs DO only live because of dogfighting and if
>least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
>not for the dogfighting.
you can't comprehend that much then you're definitely too stupid to try
discussing this topic.
>You approve of dogfighting.
No Goo. Sometimes it's better that no beings experience certain things from
my pov, and that is one of them. You're quite possibly too stupid to comprehend
that as well though Goob.
>>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>>> above.
>>>
>>>He did say it.
>>
>> LOL!!! That's a blatant lie Goo. I've also pointed out that I've never even
>>seen a dog fight you lying Goober.
>
>No.
>>seen a dog fight you lying Goober.
>
Yes Goo, I have.
>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>>
>>>You are so stupid:
>>>
>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>>> toreador.
>>
>> Goober if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
>>to think it makes any damn difference whether or not there's artistry, and
>>exactly HOW that artistry is a significant aspect of the ethics associated with
>>it. Go:
>>
>>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>> And then do you think the bull gets to live a long decent life because of it
>>Goob? Or mayb you think that happens only if the toreador dies Goo? If you think
>>instead the bull is slaughtered, then what difference do you think it makes if
>>he gets a jab at his tormentor Goob??? Explain how you think what a bull gets
>>out of goring the toreador is better than what a rooster gets out of killing his
>>opponent Goo. Go:
>>
>>>That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>> By that wussery are you sneaking in a maundering pule that you don't view
>>the spectators any differently Goob, or is it something even more wussile than
>>that? Or don't you have any idea, Goo?
>
>>exactly HOW that artistry is a significant aspect of the ethics associated with
>>it. Go:
>>
>>> Secondly, the bull sometimes gores the toreador.
>>
>> And then do you think the bull gets to live a long decent life because of it
>>Goob? Or mayb you think that happens only if the toreador dies Goo? If you think
>>instead the bull is slaughtered, then what difference do you think it makes if
>>he gets a jab at his tormentor Goob??? Explain how you think what a bull gets
>>out of goring the toreador is better than what a rooster gets out of killing his
>>opponent Goo. Go:
>>
>>>That hardly counts as a difference in how I view the spectators.
>>
>> By that wussery are you sneaking in a maundering pule that you don't view
>>the spectators any differently Goob, or is it something even more wussile than
>>that? Or don't you have any idea, Goo?
>
>*I* don't think it's a material difference, Fuckwit - you stupid fuckwit.
Then you view them as all the same Goober.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:41:38 PM11/14/12
to
about what I wrote so you're desperate to change the subject to something else.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:41:53 PM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:49:46 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>
>By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>accepts dog fighting.
No I don't. If I did I'd say why I do. Duh. Unless you can name a type of
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>
>By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>accepts dog fighting.
torture in which the animals can quit being tortured any time they want to, the
distinction remains and will remain even though I'm opposed to dogfighting.
dh
Nov 14, 2012, 2:42:03 PM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>thinks the difference is.
Why do you think the Goos are so determined to promote this particular lie
about me all of a sudden?
wrote:
>If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>thinks the difference is.
about me all of a sudden?
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 2:55:05 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:17:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I'm not ignoring the reality that he attempted to draw a distinction. I'm
ignoring the fantasy that he actually succeeded. He failed to draw a
distinction, in my view.
>> But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
>> bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
>> that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
>>
>> Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
>> you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
>> between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
>> to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
>> sense to me.
>
>This seems to be a different issue. I'm not expressing any support for
>Harrison's argument. I'm saying that it's silly to ignore the reality
>that he has in fact made the argument.
Are you trying to lead me? Okay, no, I don't believe he made the argument.
He failed to make it.
>> >> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>> >> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>> >> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>> >> >morally permitted.
>>
>> >> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
>> >> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
>> >> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
>> >> favour of dog fighting.
>>
>> >Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
>> >extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
>> >logically follows.
>>
>> Now be fair, Rupert. I was very careful to avoid that by writing, "there are
>> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
>> one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
>> in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
>> alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>
>Well, I really don't see it. Why do you suppose that there are good
>grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting, where's the
>evidence?
You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
and certainly not by Harrison.
Good Lord no. Harrison always tells the truth. We all know
that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
order if you doubt me.
“I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
there are several other people I know who feel the same
way.”
David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
and
“To me the method of raising veal--who are always
confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
but then, barely 2 months later
“I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
David Harrison 23 Sep 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w
and
“I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
but I would just ignore their suffering.”
David Harrison Nov 29 1999 http://tinyurl.com/k66pb
and then back again
“I am against many of the things that take place in the
veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
David Harrison Jan 12 2000 http://tinyurl.com/366tvna
and then back again
“I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.”
David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
wrote:
ignoring the fantasy that he actually succeeded. He failed to draw a
distinction, in my view.
>> But I don't agree. I believe a person can fail to draw a distinction. At the
>> bottom of this post you wrote, "I think it's complete nonsense to suggest
>> that there's any distinction between cockfighting and dog fighting ..."
>>
>> Harrison, then, clearly fails to draw a distinction between the two, and
>> you've all but said it yourself. To say Harrison has drawn a distinction
>> between the two vouches support for his argument. To say Harrison has failed
>> to draw a distinction between the two opposes it, and that makes perfect
>> sense to me.
>
>This seems to be a different issue. I'm not expressing any support for
>Harrison's argument. I'm saying that it's silly to ignore the reality
>that he has in fact made the argument.
He failed to make it.
>> >> >It looks as though he has watched at least one cockfight and is in
>> >> >favour of cockfighting being permitted. There are no grounds for
>> >> >saying that he watches dogfights or is in favour of dogfighting being
>> >> >morally permitted.
>>
>> >> "It's perfectly fine to say that he has no basis for drawing the
>> >> distinction" is what you wrote. That being the case, there are
>> >> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights and is in
>> >> favour of dog fighting.
>>
>> >Actually, that's obviously a complete non sequitur. It's quite
>> >extraordinary that you cannot see that that conclusion in no way
>> >logically follows.
>>
>> Now be fair, Rupert. I was very careful to avoid that by writing, "there are
>> good grounds for believing he watches dog fights ..." I didn't say or imply
>> one logically follows the other. The preponderance of evidence freely given
>> in his posts for his support in cock fighting lends such a weight to his
>> alleged participation in dog fighting that it can't be rationally disputed.
>
>Well, I really don't see it. Why do you suppose that there are good
>grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting, where's the
>evidence?
fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
and certainly not by Harrison.
that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
order if you doubt me.
“I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
there are several other people I know who feel the same
way.”
David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
and
“To me the method of raising veal--who are always
confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
but then, barely 2 months later
“I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
David Harrison 23 Sep 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w
and
“I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
but I would just ignore their suffering.”
David Harrison Nov 29 1999 http://tinyurl.com/k66pb
and then back again
“I am against many of the things that take place in the
veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
David Harrison Jan 12 2000 http://tinyurl.com/366tvna
and then back again
“I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.”
David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 2:57:23 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:39:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>>argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>
> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
>are.
Certain breeds of dog are bred for fighting. You knew that, of course.
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>>argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>
> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
>are.
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 2:58:32 PM11/14/12
to
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 2:59:15 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:41:53 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:49:46 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>>
>>By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>>accepts dog fighting.
>
> No I don't.
Yes you do.
>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>>
>>By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>>accepts dog fighting.
>
> No I don't.
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 4:36:10 PM11/14/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:39 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>
> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
> are.
Meaningless - not a distinction at all.
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>
> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
> are.
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 4:39:43 PM11/14/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, a fan of *BOTH* dogfighting and cockfighting,
*LIED*:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - enjoys watching."
>>>>>>
experience life", and so you justify it.
>
>> You approve of dogfighting.
>
> No
Yes, Goo - you approve of dogfighting.
>>>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>> He did say it.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That's a blatant lie
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes
No, Goo. You approve of dogfighting: *proved*.
>>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> You are so stupid:
>>>>
>>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>>>> toreador.
>>>
the one and only Goober, Fuckwit - which is why you support dogfighting:
proved.
*LIED*:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "disgusting animal combats that Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - enjoys watching."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Fuckwit. They *ARE* disgusting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>>>
>>>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>>>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>>>> as to why it was acceptable.
>>>
>>> You're lying Prof. Plimpton and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What types of disgusting animal combats do you enjoy watching, you stupid Goober?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Previously, Goo, you have said you like to watch roosters and dogs fight
>>>>>>>>>> to the death. Are there others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When did he say that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A long time ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was having a look through the Google Archives; he seems to have
>>>>>>> stated that cockfighting can be justified, but not to have said
>>>>>>> anything about dogfighting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He made the same justification for the dogs: they "get to experience
>>>>>> life" that otherwise wouldn't happen. He supports it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't see him saying that anywhere. Derek made the inference that
>>>>> the same argument that led him to support cockfighting would also lead
>>>>> him to support dogfighting, but I couldn't see him saying it himself
>>>>> anywhere and he explicitly disavowed it at one point.
>>>>
>>>> He claimed he didn't breed fighting dogs, but he most definitely *did*
>>>> offer the same lame, fuckwitted "they get to experience life" rationale
>>>> as to why it was acceptable.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not lying. It's *exactly* what you said: you said the dogs "at
>> least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
>> not for the dogfighting.
>
> LOL.
No lying, Goo. You *DO* believe that "at least the dogs get to
>> I'm not lying. It's *exactly* what you said: you said the dogs "at
>> least get to experience life", and that they wouldn't have "any life" if
>> not for the dogfighting.
>
> LOL.
experience life", and so you justify it.
>
>> You approve of dogfighting.
>
> No
>>>>> As far as I can tell, he has never said that he likes to watch
>>>>> roosters and dogs fight to the death, contrary to what you claimed
>>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>> He did say it.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That's a blatant lie
>>
>
> Yes
No, Goo. You approve of dogfighting: *proved*.
>>>>>>> And you yourself have expressed the view
>>>>>>> that there is "a difference" between cockfighting and bullfighting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall ever saying that.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c1419fae54caff9b?dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> You are so stupid:
>>>>
>>>> I've never been to a bullfight, but I see a difference in that and
>>>> cockfighting. First, there is artistry in the work of the
>>>> toreador.
>>>
>>> if you wrote THAT stupid shit then try to explain how you want people
>>> to think it makes any damn difference
>>
>>> to think it makes any damn difference
>>
>> *I* don't think it's a material difference, Fuckwit - you stupid fuckwit.
>
> Then you view them as all the same
*YOU* view them as all the same, Fuckwit, you stupid Goober - you *are*
>
> Then you view them as all the same
the one and only Goober, Fuckwit - which is why you support dogfighting:
proved.
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 4:40:19 PM11/14/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:41 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:42:47 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
>>> about eight or ten different situations, but
Which is why you support both cockfighting and dogfighting, Fuckwit -
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:42:47 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
>>> about eight or ten different situations, but
you stupid Goober.
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 4:40:32 PM11/14/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:41 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:49:46 +0000, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>>
>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>> accepts dog fighting.
>
> No I don't.
Yes, you do. Proved.
>
>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>>
>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
>> accepts dog fighting.
>
> No I don't.
George Plimpton
Nov 14, 2012, 4:42:03 PM11/14/12
to
inferior intelligence to understand logically necessary implications.
Derek
Nov 14, 2012, 5:55:02 PM11/14/12
to
Dutch
Nov 14, 2012, 6:19:39 PM11/14/12
to
permissible to ignore the underlying reason for doing something. I
support the poultry industry, which undoubtedly inflicts suffering on
fowl. The underlying reason for my support of that suffering is that I
use chicken to feed my family. You attempt to use the argument that the
lives of fighting birds involves less suffering than the lives of
poultry which is an attempt to gloss over a critical issue, the
underlying motive for raising fighting birds, and that is to derive
entertainment from watching them fight. It is broadly accepted among
civilized people that pitting animals against each other for
entertainment is immoral.
George Plimpton
Nov 15, 2012, 12:22:10 AM11/15/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:41 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:42:47 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
>>> about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
>>> the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
>>> far.
>>
>> Shooting someone through the head while they sleep is less cruel than
>> beating them to death with a bat, but if they are attacking you it is
>> more justifiable. Try to connect the dots..
>
> It has nothing to do with what we're talking about but
It has *everything* to do with it, Fuckwit - Goober - but of course,
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> I've only seen a few dozen fights in
>>> about eight or ten different situations, but still feel that when it's done by
>>> the way it's supposed to be done it's less cruel than the broiler industry by
>>> far.
>>
>> Shooting someone through the head while they sleep is less cruel than
>> beating them to death with a bat, but if they are attacking you it is
>> more justifiable. Try to connect the dots..
>
> It has nothing to do with what we're talking about but
you're too stupid and of inferior intelligence to get it.
You really don't get any of this. You never have.
George Plimpton
Nov 15, 2012, 12:48:31 AM11/15/12
to
On 11/14/2012 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>> saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>> thinks the difference is.
>
> Why do you think [my intellectual superiors] are so determined to promote
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:17:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you look at the link you provided you see Harrison explicitly
>> saying he does not approve of dogfighting and explaining what he
>> thinks the difference is.
>
> this particular lie about me
It's not a lie, Fuckwit.
Rupert
Nov 15, 2012, 4:47:16 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:17:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
You try to draw a moral distinction between buying meat and buying
vegetables. I personally think that this argument of yours lacks
merit, that the only distinction is the difference in the amount of
suffering caused. It would be silly for me to ignore the fact that you
think that there is a distinction and make decisions about your
behaviour based on this.
Similarly, no matter how weak you think Harrison's argument is, it's
silly to ignore the fact that he thinks there's a distinction between
cockfighting and dogfighting. There are, as far as I can tell, no good
grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting.
> David Harrison 5 June 1999http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
He might not regard boycotting veal as making a big effort to eat
ethically.
I don't make any claim about whether Harrison is honest or not. I just
don't think you have any good grounds for supposing that he
participates in dog fighting. There's no evidence.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:17:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
vegetables. I personally think that this argument of yours lacks
merit, that the only distinction is the difference in the amount of
suffering caused. It would be silly for me to ignore the fact that you
think that there is a distinction and make decisions about your
behaviour based on this.
Similarly, no matter how weak you think Harrison's argument is, it's
silly to ignore the fact that he thinks there's a distinction between
cockfighting and dogfighting. There are, as far as I can tell, no good
grounds for thinking he participates in dog fighting.
>
> and
>
> “To me the method of raising veal--who are always
> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
> David Harrison 23 July 1999http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
> and
>
> “To me the method of raising veal--who are always
> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
>
> but then, barely 2 months later
>
> “I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
> to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
> David Harrison 23 Sep 1999http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w
> but then, barely 2 months later
>
> “I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
> to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
>
> and
>
> “I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
> of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
> but I would just ignore their suffering.”
> David Harrison Nov 29 1999http://tinyurl.com/k66pb
> and
>
> “I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
> of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
> but I would just ignore their suffering.”
>
> and then back again
>
> “I am against many of the things that take place in the
> veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
> David Harrison Jan 12 2000http://tinyurl.com/366tvna
> and then back again
>
> “I am against many of the things that take place in the
> veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
>
> and then back again
>
> “I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
> enough to make the effort.”
> David Harrison 31 July 2003http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
> and then back again
>
> “I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
> enough to make the effort.”
>
> Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
He might very well have been being honest on all of those occasions.
> Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
He might not regard boycotting veal as making a big effort to eat
ethically.
I don't make any claim about whether Harrison is honest or not. I just
don't think you have any good grounds for supposing that he
participates in dog fighting. There's no evidence.
Rupert
Nov 15, 2012, 4:48:25 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 10:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 11:59 AM, Derek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:41:53 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2012 11:59 AM, Derek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:41:53 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:49:46 +0000, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> >>> David Harrison Dec 1 2009http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>
> >>> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> >>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >>> accepts dog fighting.
>
> >> No I don't.
>
> > Yes you do.
>
> Of course he does. Fuckwit - *The Goober* - is too stupid and of
> inferior intelligence to understand logically necessary implications.
By that logic you should also say that Derek thinks that buying
> >>> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >>> accepts dog fighting.
>
> >> No I don't.
>
> > Yes you do.
>
> Of course he does. Fuckwit - *The Goober* - is too stupid and of
> inferior intelligence to understand logically necessary implications.
vegetables is morally wrong.
Rupert
Nov 15, 2012, 4:48:47 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 10:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 11:41 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
> On 11/14/2012 11:41 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:49:46 +0000, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
> >> David Harrison Dec 1 2009http://tinyurl.com/bmmh7yt
>
> >> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> >> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> >> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
> >> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >> accepts dog fighting.
>
> > No I don't.
>
> Yes, you do. Proved.
You're a fool.
> >> By extension of his argument for cockfighting, Harrison
> >> accepts dog fighting.
>
> > No I don't.
>
> Yes, you do. Proved.
Derek
Nov 15, 2012, 7:43:11 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:47:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[]
Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
[]
wrote:
[]
>> You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
>> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
>> and certainly not by Harrison.
>
>You
No, this isn't about me, so stop trying to steer the discussion away from
>> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
>> and certainly not by Harrison.
>
>You
Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
[]
>> >> Then, if you doubt that he can defend drawing such a distinction, why
>> >> announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
>> >> every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
>>
>> >The point is that he believes that the distinction exists, however
>> >indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
>> >says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
>> >word.
>>
>> Good Lord no. Harrison always tells the truth. We all know
>> that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
>> order if you doubt me.
>>
>> ��I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
>> � there are several other people I know who feel the same
>> � way.�
>> � David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
>> >> announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
>> >> every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
>>
>> >The point is that he believes that the distinction exists, however
>> >indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
>> >says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
>> >word.
>>
>> Good Lord no. Harrison always tells the truth. We all know
>> that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
>> order if you doubt me.
>>
>> ��I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
>> � there are several other people I know who feel the same
>> � way.�
>>
>> and
>>
>> ��To me the method of raising veal--who are always
>> � confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
>> � a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
>> � often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
>> � killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.�
>> � David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
>> and
>>
>> ��To me the method of raising veal--who are always
>> � confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
>> � a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
>> � often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
>> � killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.�
>>
>> but then, barely 2 months later
>>
>> ��I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
>> � �to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal�
>> � �David Harrison 23 Sep 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w
>> but then, barely 2 months later
>>
>> ��I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
>> � �to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal�
>>
>> and
>>
>> � �I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
>> � �of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
>> � �meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
>> � �but I would just ignore their suffering.�
>> � �David Harrison Nov 29 1999 http://tinyurl.com/k66pb
>> and
>>
>> � �I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
>> � �of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
>> � �meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
>> � �but I would just ignore their suffering.�
>>
>> and then back again
>>
>> ��I am against many of the things that take place in the
>> � veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal�
>> � David Harrison Jan 12 2000 http://tinyurl.com/366tvna
>> and then back again
>>
>> ��I am against many of the things that take place in the
>> � veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal�
>>
>> and then back again
>>
>> ��I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
>> � enough to make the effort.�
>> � David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
>> and then back again
>>
>> ��I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
>> � enough to make the effort.�
>>
>> Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
>
>He might very well have been being honest on all of those occasions.
No, not a chance. You don't believe that.
>> Yep, there's never a dishonest bone in his entire being.
>
>He might very well have been being honest on all of those occasions.
George Plimpton
Nov 15, 2012, 1:58:28 PM11/15/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 15, 2012, 1:59:14 PM11/15/12
to
On 11/15/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 15, 2012, 2:29:35 PM11/15/12
to
years only to be pet food.
Rupert
Nov 16, 2012, 4:45:18 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 1:43 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:47:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
steer the discussion onto you, it was to show you how silly you're
being saying that Harrison supports dog fighting and most likely
participates in it. But it would seem that the prospects of getting
you to see that are not good.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Then, if you doubt that he can defend drawing such a distinction, why
> >> >> announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
> >> >> every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
>
> >> >The point is that he believes that the distinction exists, however
> >> >indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
> >> >says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
> >> >word.
>
> >> Good Lord no. Harrison always tells the truth. We all know
> >> that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
> >> order if you doubt me.
>
> >> “I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
> >> there are several other people I know who feel the same
> >> way.”
> >> David Harrison 5 June 1999http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:47:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
> >> You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
> >> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
> >> and certainly not by Harrison.
>
> >You
>
> No, this isn't about me, so stop trying to steer the discussion away from
> Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
> cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
> []
>
I know it's not about you, and the point of the analogy was not to
>
>
>
> >On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
> >> You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
> >> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
> >> and certainly not by Harrison.
>
> >You
>
> No, this isn't about me, so stop trying to steer the discussion away from
> Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
> cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
> []
>
steer the discussion onto you, it was to show you how silly you're
being saying that Harrison supports dog fighting and most likely
participates in it. But it would seem that the prospects of getting
you to see that are not good.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> Then, if you doubt that he can defend drawing such a distinction, why
> >> >> announce that he has in fact drawn one? He clearly hasn't. His attempts fail
> >> >> every time. He fails to draw a distinction.
>
> >> >The point is that he believes that the distinction exists, however
> >> >indefensibly. So it's silly to say that he supports dogfighting. He
> >> >says that he doesn't and there's no good reason not to take him at his
> >> >word.
>
> >> Good Lord no. Harrison always tells the truth. We all know
> >> that. Just look at the evidence of his honesty in chronological
> >> order if you doubt me.
>
> >> “I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
> >> there are several other people I know who feel the same
> >> way.”
>
> >> and
>
> >> “To me the method of raising veal--who are always
> >> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
> >> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
> >> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
> >> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
> >> David Harrison 23 July 1999http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
> >> and
>
> >> “To me the method of raising veal--who are always
> >> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
> >> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
> >> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
> >> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal.”
>
> >> but then, barely 2 months later
>
> >> “I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
> >> to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
> >> David Harrison 23 Sep 1999http://tinyurl.com/yh5yc6w
> >> but then, barely 2 months later
>
> >> “I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
> >> to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal”
>
> >> and
>
> >> “I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
> >> of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
> >> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
> >> but I would just ignore their suffering.”
> >> David Harrison Nov 29 1999http://tinyurl.com/k66pb
> >> and
>
> >> “I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
> >> of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
> >> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
> >> but I would just ignore their suffering.”
>
> >> and then back again
>
> >> “I am against many of the things that take place in the
> >> veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
> >> David Harrison Jan 12 2000http://tinyurl.com/366tvna
> >> and then back again
>
> >> “I am against many of the things that take place in the
> >> veal industry, and therefore don't eat veal”
>
> >> and then back again
>
> >> “I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
> >> enough to make the effort.”
> >> David Harrison 31 July 2003http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
> >> and then back again
>
> >> “I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
> >> enough to make the effort.”
Rupert
Nov 16, 2012, 4:45:52 AM11/16/12
to
Rupert
Nov 16, 2012, 4:46:03 AM11/16/12
to
Derek
Nov 16, 2012, 6:53:09 AM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 1:43 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:47:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> []
>> >> You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
>> >> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
>> >> and certainly not by Harrison.
>>
>> >You
>>
>> No, this isn't about me, so stop trying to steer the discussion away from
>> Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
>> cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
>> []
>>
>
>I know it's not about you, and the point of the analogy was not to
>steer the discussion onto you, it was to show you how silly you're
>being saying that Harrison supports dog fighting and most likely
>participates in it. But it would seem that the prospects of getting
>you to see that are not good.
No, they aren't, so give up trying to make my position analogous to
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 1:43 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:47:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> []
>> >> You'll find it in his support for cock fighting. Dog fighting and cock
>> >> fighting are indistinct. An ethically relevant distinction cannot be made,
>> >> and certainly not by Harrison.
>>
>> >You
>>
>> No, this isn't about me, so stop trying to steer the discussion away from
>> Harrison onto me. Harrison has not successfully drawn a distinction between
>> cock fighting and dog fighting. You've conceded that they are indistinct.
>> []
>>
>
>I know it's not about you, and the point of the analogy was not to
>steer the discussion onto you, it was to show you how silly you're
>being saying that Harrison supports dog fighting and most likely
>participates in it. But it would seem that the prospects of getting
>you to see that are not good.
Harrison's in an effort to discredit both at the same time. Let me say
again that cock fighting and dog fighting are indistinct. Harrison
justifies his participation in cock fighting on a set of arguments
that demand purposeful behaviour which, by praxeological reasoning
alone, more than suggests he does or would take part in dog fighting.
His apparent abhorrence surrounding dog fighting is inexplicable and
therefore must be a charade to head off criticism from the millions of
dog owners who genuinely find dog fighting abhorrent.
Rupert
Nov 16, 2012, 7:59:19 AM11/16/12
to
Derek
Nov 16, 2012, 10:22:45 AM11/16/12
to
perfectly.
Rupert
Nov 16, 2012, 10:36:33 AM11/16/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 16, 2012, 4:58:22 PM11/16/12
to
perfectly.
George Plimpton
Nov 16, 2012, 10:48:19 PM11/16/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 16, 2012, 10:48:39 PM11/16/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 17, 2012, 12:13:11 AM11/17/12
to
to be pet food. Of course he eventually admitted his idea was
"fuckwitted and wrong" and he will do the same with this latest notion
of his.
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 3:05:11 AM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 3:05:43 AM11/17/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 11:09:02 AM11/17/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 11:09:41 AM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 11:16:44 AM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 11:17:38 AM11/17/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 11:53:09 AM11/17/12
to
out of that classification.
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 11:53:31 AM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 11:54:56 AM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 11:55:22 AM11/17/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 12:18:18 PM11/17/12
to
in Germany except for the first Saturday of the month - langer Samstag -
but by now you've missed any chance.
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 12:18:39 PM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 12:22:22 PM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 12:22:38 PM11/17/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 12:53:16 PM11/17/12
to
time in Usenet instead of out with the mates at a nice bierstüberl in
Münster. Don't you have any mates there, Woopert?
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 12:53:42 PM11/17/12
to
Rupert
Nov 17, 2012, 12:57:51 PM11/17/12
to
> time in Usenet instead of out with the mates at a nice bierst�berl in
> M�nster. Don't you have any mates there, Woopert?
I've tried a couple of people to see if they want to go to the pub but
one of them has just got back from travelling and is tired and the
other I haven't managed to reach yet. I'm talking with a friend on
Facebook. I'll probably go to the pub eventually.
George Plimpton
Nov 17, 2012, 4:08:23 PM11/17/12
to
>> time in Usenet instead of out with the mates at a nice bierst�berl in
>> M�nster. Don't you have any mates there, Woopert?
>
> I've tried a couple of people to see if they want to go to the pub but
> one of them has just got back from travelling and is tired and the
> other I haven't managed to reach yet. I'm talking with a friend on
> Facebook. I'll probably go to the pub eventually.
For a nice bracing sparkling water, no doubt.
> I've tried a couple of people to see if they want to go to the pub but
> one of them has just got back from travelling and is tired and the
> other I haven't managed to reach yet. I'm talking with a friend on
> Facebook. I'll probably go to the pub eventually.
Rupert
Nov 18, 2012, 4:53:16 AM11/18/12
to
George Plimpton
Nov 18, 2012, 11:55:25 AM11/18/12
to
Rupert
Nov 18, 2012, 12:02:06 PM11/18/12
to
and reality.
George Plimpton
Nov 18, 2012, 1:28:10 PM11/18/12
to
Rupert
Nov 18, 2012, 2:18:43 PM11/18/12
to
you think that's the reality?
George Plimpton
Nov 18, 2012, 3:47:57 PM11/18/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
Nov 18, 2012, 10:20:11 PM11/18/12
to
years only to be pet food?
Rupert
Nov 19, 2012, 4:48:56 AM11/19/12
to
be proving to you what the correct answer was.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages