Goobernicus is Alive and Well....................
Mr.Smartypants
.................and posting to alt.california as Wilson Woods.
What a goober.
dh
<bc...@canada.com> wrote:
>.................and posting to alt.california as Wilson Woods.
He is? Goo, is this true? Have your nurses let you back on
the internet again Goob? If so, how come you haven't come over to
say hi in aaev? Some of us have really missed your bold idiocies
and blatant dishonesties...there's an empty feeling where there
used to be much amusement and laughter at your attempts to get
away with the most blatant of lies...
>What a goober.
I hope some people can appreciate how amusing the blatancy of
his dishonesties can often be in alt.california. Unless the
Goober has changed completely--which in his case would probably
require a brain transplant--at least some of the people Goo has
encountered should be aware of and familiar with his lyings.
Wilson Woods huh? Let's break out the list:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<pricker...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notg...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.s...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb2...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra
It's not in exact order of appearance but fairly close, so Goob
has chosen a pretty old one for the time being. He lied about
being Dieter for a while after Woods, and then did even more
lying about being Abner Hale and Roger Whitaker, and then a LOT
of lying about being Ted Bell. Goo lied about being Jay Santos
quite a bit, and Leif Erikson, of course with the various others
sprinkled in so he could agree with and compliment himselves as
he lied along... Then he lied the last year or so in aaev as Rudy
Canoza if I remember right, and now he's gone way back to lying
about being Wilson Woods again. Maybe history will repeat itself
a little bit and we can once more be amused by some of the grand
self outstupidifications we came to know of love, unintentionally
provided by our favorite goober: the great Goobernicus :-)
Mr.Smartypants
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:42:06 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>
> Abner Hale
> Roger Whitaker
> Fucktard
> Apoo
> Ted Bell
> Jay Santos
> mortons.steakho...@chicago.not
> Rudy Canoza
> Trappist
> sb29...@yahoo.com
> Leif Erikson
> S. Maizlich
> SlipperySlope
> Eden
> Sylvia Stevens
> chico chupacabra
>
> It's not in exact order of appearance but fairly close, so Goob
> has chosen a pretty old one for the time being. He lied about
> being Dieter for a while after Woods, and then did even more
> lying about being Abner Hale and Roger Whitaker, and then a LOT
> of lying about being Ted Bell. Goo lied about being Jay Santos
> quite a bit, and Leif Erikson, of course with the various others
> sprinkled in so he could agree with and compliment himselves as
> he lied along... Then he lied the last year or so in aaev as Rudy
> Canoza if I remember right, and now he's gone way back to lying
> about being Wilson Woods again. Maybe history will repeat itself
> a little bit and we can once more be amused by some of the grand
> self outstupidifications we came to know of love, unintentionally
> provided by our favorite goober: the great Goobernicus :-)
Poor Goo. Despite using dozens of nyms his outstupidifications became
his unmistakable signature.
He's probably getting his ass reamed out at alt.california as we
speak.
ne...@millions.com
The old three-seat bandwagon, eh?
DCI
Dutch
<ne...@millions.com> wrote in message
news:44khe5ls8l279cr4d...@4ax.com...
smartypants likes to talk about ass reaming
dh
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
Nothing is as amusing as Goo's outstupidings...we were
spoiled by "the good ol' days".
>He's probably getting his ass reamed out at alt.california as we
>speak.
I've dropped by to share some Goobal history but they haven't
responded, or at least if they did they removed the link to aaev.
Maybe they aren't as amused with his stupidities and dishonesties
as some of us are. I can't help but notice again the cowardice of
Goo himself. He used to at least try to defend himself but I
guess he learned that he's his own "worst enemy" even when he
tries, and has given up. We can't really blame the poor idiot in
his case, but it sure isn't as much fun without all his
stupidities all the time...
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5iqje5dhkp4tqotl7...@4ax.com...
Methinks you protest too much.
Mr.Smartypants
Indeed. Aaev seems all "business" now. In Goo's glory days it was all
hilarious none-stop entertainment.
D' ya think maybe a shrink got a hold of the Goober and medicated him
to a near comatose level?
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:cca03dcc-116b-4d3d...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
---------->
Who are you trying to convince?
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Convince whom of what, Douche?
Dutch
-------->
It's "Convince who?" and I think you know.
Anyone who followed aaev knows that both of you suffered relentless
humiliation at the hands of JB. Nobody else knows what you're talking
about. Neither group cares.
These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
licking, the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those days
with any self respect, yourself or each other?
Mr.Smartypants
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The only one that JB relentlessly humiliated was himself with his
masterful outstupidifications.
Nobody else knows what you're talking
> about. Neither group cares.
>
> These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
> licking, the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
>
> So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those days
> with any self respect, yourself or each other?-
Douche, it's a little late to try to defend ~jonnie~ the goober. He
fled the scene after waking to the fact that *all* he ever
accomplished here was to outstupid himself over and over and over ad
infinitum.
ne...@millions.com
Excellent opinion, if it were based on any observable facts. Keep
trying, you'll be busy but not siccessful.
DCI
Dutch
> These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
> licking, the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
>
> So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those
> days
> with any self respect, yourself or each other?-
Douche, it's a little late to try to defend ~jonnie~ the goober.
------------------------>
What is too little too late are your pitiful attempts to win battles you
lost months and years ago.
He
fled the scene after waking to the fact that *all* he ever
accomplished here was to outstupid himself over and over and over ad
infinitum.
------------------>
He realized what I should have realized long ago, arguing with morons makes
you one of them.
dh
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! That is quite possibly the stupidest most
hilarious thing you've ever written in your life.
>Nobody else knows what you're talking
>about. Neither group cares.
>
>These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
>licking,
LOL!!!! This is almost as much fun as having Goo do it.
Here's a fun idea: Try providing ANY examples of the Goober
"wounding" either one of us.
>the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <cJ9Kf.1332$5M6...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Ron asked:
>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?
Yes.
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID:
<1144786323.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Ron pointed out:
> You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become PET
> FOOD.
Some are.
���������������������������������������������������������
LOL!!! What a stupid Goober! Now back to the challenge: Try
providing some examples of either of us being "badly beaten" by
Goo. GO:
>So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those days
>with any self respect, yourself or each other?
All we had to do was challenge the Goober to try explaining
his idiocy, and he showed himself to be the idiot. Goo never came
out on top afaik. For one thing Goo always lied, so he lost by
forfeit right from the start. For another thing when the Goober
did manage to persuade people to believe his lies in reality he
STILL lost by forfeit even when there was someone around who was
stupid enough to believe him. Goo outstupided himself time and
time again, usually by the blatancy of his dishonesty. I feel
very safe in saying that you can't give a single example of a
time that Goo came out on top of a disagreement with myself, or
probably with Mr Smartypants either.
dh
>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote>
>> These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
>> licking, the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
>>
>> So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those
>> days
>> with any self respect, yourself or each other?-
>
>
>Douche, it's a little late to try to defend ~jonnie~ the goober.
>------------------------>
>
>What is too little too late are your pitiful attempts to win battles you
>lost months and years ago.
One thing you and Goo never seemed to learn is that causing a
Goober to be dishonest and display his own idiocy doesn't make
the Goober win anything, and at the benefit of much amusement
some of us enjoyed seeing Goo display both countless times.
Others of you were crushed to see your hero exposed as such an
idiot, but that's your own fault for admiring such a dishonest
stupid clown to begin with.
> He
>fled the scene after waking to the fact that *all* he ever
>accomplished here was to outstupid himself over and over and over ad
>infinitum.
>------------------>
>
>He realized what I should have realized long ago, arguing with morons makes
>you one of them.
You appear to be a moron whatever you happen to be doing. Are
you suggesting you can do some things that don't make you appear
to be stupid?
Dutch
> very safe in saying that you can't give a single example of a
> time that Goo came out on top of a disagreement with myself
Every single time.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:k551f552fhanf3mvb...@4ax.com...
This has to be close to rock bottom. I am responding to being called stupid
by a complete idiot.
Mr.Smartypants
LOL!!
What an imagination you have!
Remember Goo telling Dave to set his clock ahead an
hour................then several posts later Goo said " I DIDN'T say
to set your clock ahead an hour".
How is *that* coming out on top?
Explain.
Dutch
LOL!!
Explain.
No, I don't.
dh
>>time again, usually by the blatancy of his dishonesty. I feel
>>very safe in saying that you can't give a single example of a
>>time that Goo came out on top of a disagreement with myself, or
>>probably with Mr Smartypants either.
>
>Every single time.
That's a blatant lie, no doubt about it.
dh
LOL! I've been pointing out what a moron you are for over 8
years now, but you are slow to catch on to things. In case you
hadn't noticed I've also often pointed out how dishonest you are.
Dutch
Every time he proved beyond a doubt that life cannot be a benefit.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0pa6f5pams8k1h60m...@4ax.com...
Yep, rock bottom.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:ula6f5tqm7mmiovgk...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:01:15 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:38:10 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:04:38 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Anyone who followed aaev knows that both of you suffered relentless
> >>>>humiliation at the hands of JB.
>
> >>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!! That is quite possibly the stupidest most
> >>>hilarious thing you've ever written in your life.
>
> >>>>Nobody else knows what you're talking
> >>>>about. Neither group cares.
>
> >>>>These exhanges between the two of you can only be viewed as mutual wound
> >>>>licking,
>
> >>> LOL!!!! This is almost as much fun as having Goo do it.
> >>>Here's a fun idea: Try providing ANY examples of the Goober
> >>>"wounding" either one of us.
>
> >>>>the comiserations of two badly beaten dormats.
>
> >>>_________________________________________________________
> >>>From: Goo
>
> >>>Ron asked:
>
> >>>>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
> >>>>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
> >>>>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
> >>>>supplying the pet food industry?
>
> >>>Yes.
> >>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>>_________________________________________________________
> >>>From: Goo
> >>>Message-ID:
>
> >>>Ron pointed out:
>
> >>>> You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become PET
> >>>> FOOD.
>
> >>>Some are.
> >>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>>LOL!!! What a stupid Goober! Now back to the challenge: Try
> >>>providing some examples of either of us being "badly beaten" by
> >>>Goo. GO:
>
> >>>>So I repeat, who are you trying to convince that you came out of those
> >>>>days
> >>>>with any self respect, yourself or each other?
>
> >>> All we had to do was challenge the Goober to try explaining
> >>>his idiocy, and he showed himself to be the idiot. Goo never came
> >>>out on top afaik. For one thing Goo always lied, so he lost by
> >>>forfeit right from the start. For another thing when the Goober
> >>>did manage to persuade people to believe his lies in reality he
> >>>STILL lost by forfeit even when there was someone around who was
> >>>stupid enough to believe him. Goo outstupided himself time and
> >>>time again, usually by the blatancy of his dishonesty. I feel
> >>>very safe in saying that you can't give a single example of a
> >>>time that Goo came out on top of a disagreement with myself, or
> >>>probably with Mr Smartypants either.
>
> >>Every single time.
>
> > That's a blatant lie, no doubt about it.
>
LOL!!
Re-read some of his posts. He proved nothing except that he is the
absolute MASTER OF OUTSTUPIDIFICATION.
Dutch
LOL!!
--------------->
You're thinking of Harrison.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
I'm thinking of Goo the pet food expert.
LOL!!
Dutch
LOL!!
C'mon, I don't agree with everything Ball says, but Harrison is the master
of stupid. You're some kind of opponent of animal exploitation aren't you?
What are you doing in bed with a cock fighter who believes we do animals a
favour by eating them. Ball must really have your panties in a twist.
Mr.Smartypants
Hasn't it penetrated your tiny mind that Goo is so good at
outstupiding himself that Dave and I on opposite ends of the spectrum
both can agree on that fact?
Dutch
----------------------->
Sorry, that doesn't add up. You forget, I witnessed the whole thing. If this
was just about somebody being "stupid" you wouldn't be in league with
someone so diametrically opposed to what you believe. You are two guys who
have had the royal piss taken out of them and you're licking each others
wounds.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
LOL!
You wish!
Dutch
LOL!
You wish!
--------->
I don't wish, it's nothing to me either way.
dh
That is an excellent suggestion. What fun that once again
we're enjoying Goobal idiotics, and with his boy "Dutch" still
around to attempt some defence for it...or more likely NOT.
Anyway, we see that the Goober disagrees with himself like his
boy does:
_________________________________________________________
"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo
"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Goo even disagrees with himself about whether or not their lives
should be taken into consideration at all:
_________________________________________________________
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo
"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo
"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
and here's a classic that Mr Smartypants reminded us of:
_________________________________________________________
"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
and then there's Goo's amusing though pathetic obsession with his
supposed "pre-existent state", on which his entire "argument" is
based:
_________________________________________________________
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo
"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Looking back we remember: Wow, what an idiot.
dh
>>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
>>On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> C'mon, I don't agree with everything Ball says, but Harrison is the master
>>> of stupid. You're some kind of opponent of animal exploitation aren't you?
>>> What are you doing in bed with a cock fighter who believes we do animals a
>>> favour by eating them. Ball must really have your panties in a twist.-
>>
>>
>>Hasn't it penetrated your tiny mind that Goo is so good at
>>outstupiding himself that Dave and I on opposite ends of the spectrum
>>both can agree on that fact?
>----------------------->
>
>Sorry, that doesn't add up.
That's the way it is you poor fool. We're enjoying the same
thing with you too btw.
>You forget, I witnessed the whole thing.
Your love of the Goober prevented you from correctly
interpreting what you witnessed, or you're lying about it. Or
most likely it's a combination of both.
>If this
>was just about somebody being "stupid" you wouldn't be in league with
>someone so diametrically opposed to what you believe.
Now wtf are you trying to say that differing beliefs about
what is and is not cruel to animals, has to do with what people
with such differing beliefs think about a lying
self-outstupidifying slimebag like the Goober?
>You are two guys who
>have had the royal piss taken out of them
There's no evidence of that. None.
Dutch
Keep telling yourself that, over and and over and over and over......
Dutch
The evidence is overwhelming.
Mr.Smartypants
This evidence:?
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo
"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
How the f*** do you keep a straight face when you're trying to defend
the Goo?
I'd be rolling on the floor pissing my pants laughing if I tried it.
Mr.Smartypants
Indeed we do remember.......and his Goobal antics will outlive the
Goo.
dh
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:49:28 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 "Mr.Smartypants" suggested:
>>Looking back we remember: Wow, what an idiot.
>
>Keep telling yourself that, over and and over and over and over......
LOL! I keep proving it over and and over and over and
over.....
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
LOL!
"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
LOL!!!
dh
Try providing some. You can't because there is none. It sure
would be fun to see you try presenting something, sometime, but
no...never...not you.
dh
I sure wish "Dutch" would try to defend some of the stupidity
instead of just lying about the Goober having kicked some ass
somewhere. Could he really not recognise the truth when it's laid
out before him? Or does he want people to believe he's stupider
than he actually is and can't see the stupidity in Goo? It always
gets back to that question with these goobers.
Dutch
This evidence:?
-------------------
You probably piss your pants but that's not the reason.
No, your lame attempts to paste together some quotes that make it look like
you held your own in those discussions is not at all convincing. You keep
forgetting, I was there.
Ball made a laughing stock out of fuckwit and used you for a punching bag.
It was fun to watch.
Dutch
over......
>
> LOL! I keep
Telling yourself over and over and over... The human ego defends itself any
way it can.
Now that he's not here to make a daily laughing stock of you, you can
practice this creative rewriting of history.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:323pf5l6fdghjmpms...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:41:48 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:54:03 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>You are two guys who
>>>>have had the royal piss taken out of them
>>>
>>> There's no evidence of that. None.
>>
>>The evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Try providing some.
That's too funny.. "life is a benefit" fuckwit.
Mr.Smartypants
What re-writing?
The quotes are presented exactly as the Goober made them.
At this point we have to ask ourselves who is stupider, you or Goo.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
On Nov 12, 10:08 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote>>Keep telling yourself that, over and and over and over and
> over......
>
>
>
> > LOL! I keep
>
> Telling yourself over and over and over... The human ego defends itself
> any
> way it can.
>
> Now that he's not here to make a daily laughing stock of you, you can
> practice this creative rewriting of history.
What re-writing?
The quotes are presented exactly as the Goober made them.
--------------->
Where to begin... The quotes are out of context. The fuckwit got
consistently and severely manhandled by Ball, at every turn and in every
possible way. You were nothing more than an irrelevant sidelight. THAT is
the reality, YOU should forget it and move on, because pretending anything
else and throwing your lot in with usenet's biggest animal abuser and creep
is just plain stupid.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
Once again for those who are mentally diminished, Dave and I will
likely NEVER see eye-to-eye on animal welfare or rights but we do
agree on one thing for sure:
Goobernicus (Jonny Ball) is the master of OUTSTUPIDIFCATION of
himself............and it appears you'd like him to be your mentor.
ne...@millions.com
You can't hold a candle to The Man! He just wraps you up in those
tin-foil hats and flack-jackets and watches you wiggle and squirm
while trying to reassemble your fractured knowledge, logic and
opinions.
You are nothing more than theatrical material.
Enjoy.
DCI
Mr.Smartypants
Yeh, you can't beat the Goo for fucking up logic.
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo
"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
Dutch
----------------->
I have nothing to do with him, I just hate to see people delude themselves
as you two are doing.
Dutch
Yeh, you can't beat the Goo for fucking up logic.
------------>
False, fuckwit by light years..
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo
----------.
That is *assuming for the sake of argument* that "pre-existence" is a real
phenomenon.
"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
----------
Absolutely correct, he did NOT say they do, that was a premise accepted for
sake of argument. The whole argument is taken almost verbatim from Salt's
refutation of the Logic of the Larder. The jist of it is that to call coming
into existence a "benefit" there must be an entity of some form to be the
beneficiary of the benefit, which means there must be a state that predates
existence, or "pre-existence". Logic however says there is no
"pre-existence", therefore coming into existence cannot be a benefit, but
*even_if* there is, there is no way to know if it is better or worse than
existence, so coming into existence *still* cannot be called a benefit.
This solid logic refutes the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder", yet rather than see it
correctly as supporting your beliefs you prefer to abandom your ethics and
attack it because your feelings are bruised over being called a few names.
dh
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 2:24�pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>> On Nov 12, 10:08 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <dh@.> wrote>>Keep telling yourself that, over and and over and over and
>> > over......
>>
>> > > LOL! I keep
>>
>> > Telling yourself over and over and over... The human ego defends itself
>> > any
>> > way it can.
>>
>> > Now that he's not here to make a daily laughing stock of you, you can
>> > practice this creative rewriting of history.
>>
>> What re-writing?
>>
>> The quotes are presented exactly as the Goober made them.
>> --------------->
>>
>> Where to begin... The quotes are out of context. �The fuckwit got
>> consistently and severely manhandled by Ball, at every turn and in every
>> possible way. You were nothing more than an irrelevant sidelight. THAT is
>> the reality, YOU should forget it and move on, because pretending anything
>> else and throwing your lot in with usenet's biggest animal abuser and creep
>> is just plain stupid.
>
>
>
>Once again for those who are mentally diminished, Dave and I will
>likely NEVER see eye-to-eye on animal welfare
Probably not...at least we wouldn't in all cases. The "we
wouldn't in any cases" part comes from the misnomer position,
since that is a most extreme position and so extreme that it
wouldn't even allow for the situation in question to exist.
Anything less extreme than the misnomer would begin to fall into
the AW category until we cross on over into the area of people
who don't care at all about AW but feel anything is okay because
"they're just animals". Then there is the anitconsideration
position which to me is supposed to be the opposite of the animal
interest position, yet we find that misnomer huggers as well as
the Goober and "Dutch" all agree on that approach.
>or rights
To me it seems like we should agree on that because the
reality of it seems so obvious and clear. For one thing nothing
"has" rights or there wouldn't be any surviving carnivores or
even omnivores except possibly for some scavengers. For another
thing rights have to be respected otherwise they're not worth
anything. Even if some animals are granted some rights they won't
be appreciated or respected by any creatures other than humans,
including themselves and members of their own communities. So we
see that rights don't just exist, and that even if they were
granted they could never be observed by anything other than
humans, so it doesn't seem that they really would "be" rights
even then when they can't be observed by the animals' own
populations.
>but we do agree on one thing for sure:
>
>Goobernicus (Jonny Ball) is the master of OUTSTUPIDIFCATION of
>himself............
Yes!
>and it appears you'd like him to be your mentor.
LOL! I was wondering would "Dutch" be Goo's poster child, or
would Goo be "Dutch's"? Ah...remember all the "different"
characters who at first appeared to just happen along, with their
sole interst being to defend some of the Goober's dishonesties
and idiocies? Like:
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<pricker...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notg...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.s...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb2...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra
(and whatever else I missed...), and then we would find out it
was just Goo dishonestly posting as someone else again, praising
himselves and congratulating himselves just as "Dutch" is doing
now. Hmmm....it keeps coming back to whether there are two (or
twenty :-) people as stupid as Goo and willing to defend his
idiocies and dishonesties, or if it has been the same Goober the
whole time all these years......???
dh
>"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote
>
>Yeh, you can't beat the Goo for fucking up logic.
>------------>
>
>False, fuckwit by light years..
>
>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>existence we know" - Goo
>----------.
>
>That is *assuming for the sake of argument* that "pre-existence" is a real
>phenomenon.
>
>
>"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
>----------
>
>Absolutely correct, he did NOT say they do, that was a premise accepted for
>sake of argument. The whole argument is taken almost verbatim from Salt's
>refutation of the Logic of the Larder. The jist of it is that to call coming
>into existence a "benefit" there must be an entity of some form to be the
>beneficiary of the benefit, which means there must be a state that predates
>existence, or "pre-existence".
LOL!!! It certainly APPEARS very clear that life itself is
the benefit which makes all others possible. If that's not true
LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
be answered. Such as:
1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
benefit.
2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
benefitting from your existence now.
When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
life you didn't exist.
>Logic however says there is no
>"pre-existence", therefore coming into existence cannot be a benefit, but
>*even_if* there is, there is no way to know if it is better or worse than
>existence, so coming into existence *still* cannot be called a benefit.
>
>This solid logic refutes
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You can't answer either question you moron.
You don't even provide anything to think about, much less
anything worth believing.
>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
for food.
>yet rather than see it
>correctly as supporting your beliefs you prefer to abandom your ethics
LOL!!!! Has anyone ever believed that you're an opponent of
the misnomer you support so consistently? LOL! Do you think you
have Mr Smartypants fooled? I wonder...often I wonder if all of
you know and have discussed via email the fact that you and Goo
are dishonest misnomer advocates including Mr Smartypants, and
Pearl, and Rupert, and Derek--oh yes Derek--and whoever else...
>and
>attack it because your feelings are bruised over being called a few names.
He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
dh
A person should consider the "we can't afford to believe a
thing you say" factor when you make claims like that about one of
your fellow goobers--Goo--whose idiocy you're trying lovingly but
futilely to defend.
>I just hate to see people delude themselves
>as you two are doing.
We've all enjoyed examples of Goo's idiocy and even though
you snip them we know they still exist, and possibly always will.
Since you can't come up with any examples of anyone being
"severely manhandled" (LOL!) by the Goober, let's enjoy more
examples of his idiocies:
_________________________________________________________
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
problem." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
At this point I would like to pause and point out that I DO talk
about benefits for existing animals, and animals that have
existed, as well as those who can or will exist in the future.
ONLY the Goober is restricted to considerations of whatever
imaginary beings he's claiming "we" are restricted to, unless of
course he's lying about that also.
Now back to enjoying more examples of Goobal idiotics:
_________________________________________________________
"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to
merit consideration." - Goo
"I win, no matter what I do." - Goo
"So, there is no point in mentioning my doctor." - Goo
"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration. I also give the not-yet-begun lives
of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
lot of consideration" - Goo
"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Notice that Goo went from saying we don't know whether or not
life can be better than his supposed pre-existent state, to
claiming he somehow found out that it's not>
dh
Provide some examples of things that don't have the benefit
of life but do benefit from other things. Go:
(correct prediction: since nothing can benefit without the
benefit of life, the Gooling can present no examples to back up
his suggestion that life is not a benefit)
Mr.Smartypants
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:52:52 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:gli0g51et3hel51m5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:07:05 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote
>>
>>Yeh, you can't beat the Goo for fucking up logic.
>>------------>
>>
>>False, fuckwit by light years..
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know" - Goo
>>----------.
>>
>>That is *assuming for the sake of argument* that "pre-existence" is a real
>>phenomenon.
>>
>>
>>"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
>>----------
>>
>>Absolutely correct, he did NOT say they do, that was a premise accepted
>>for
>>sake of argument. The whole argument is taken almost verbatim from Salt's
>>refutation of the Logic of the Larder. The jist of it is that to call
>>coming
>>into existence a "benefit" there must be an entity of some form to be the
>>beneficiary of the benefit, which means there must be a state that
>>predates
>>existence, or "pre-existence".
>
> LOL!!! It certainly APPEARS very clear that life itself is
> the benefit which makes all others possible
That's rhetorical, not logical. That is another dishonest tactic you use
without understanding what you're doing, like equivocation.
. If that's not true
> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
> be answered. Such as:
>
> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
> benefit.
It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
> benefitting from your existence now.
>
> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
> life you didn't exist.
"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I presume
means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting from
*coming into* existence.
>
>>Logic however says there is no
>>"pre-existence", therefore coming into existence cannot be a benefit, but
>>*even_if* there is, there is no way to know if it is better or worse than
>>existence, so coming into existence *still* cannot be called a benefit.
>>
>>This solid logic refutes
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You can't answer either question you moron.
> You don't even provide anything to think about, much less
> anything worth believing.
Already done, decisively and irrefutably.
>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>
> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
> for food.
You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got to
experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
>>yet rather than see it
>>correctly as supporting your beliefs you prefer to abandom your ethics
>
> LOL!!!! Has anyone ever believed that you're an opponent of
> the misnomer you support so consistently?
You mean AR, I oppose it.
LOL! Do you think you
> have Mr Smartypants fooled? I wonder...often I wonder if all of
> you know and have discussed via email the fact that you and Goo
> are dishonest misnomer advocates including Mr Smartypants, and
> Pearl, and Rupert, and Derek--oh yes Derek--and whoever else...
Whoever rejects the Logic of the Larder you mean. Like everyone who opposes
slavery is opposed to black Americans living.
>>and
>>attack it because your feelings are bruised over being called a few names.
>
> He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
> out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
> influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
> aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
> whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
> has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
> which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
> which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
> and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
> are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
> giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
> the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
> even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
You're too stupid to live.
Dutch
No doubt that made sense to that primitive intellect of yours.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1jj0g5prmpsmplaj9...@4ax.com...
Life cannot be a benefit, refer to my earlier post for conclusive proof.
Dutch
Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
------------>
Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
existed.
He was totally stumped when asked to explain it.
Dutch
On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
> better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>
> Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
> ------------>
>
> Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
existed.
--------->
He didn't.
He was totally stumped when asked to explain it.
---->
He wasn't because he didn't. His position is the same as mine and it comes
straight from the Salt essay refuting the LoL. Have you read it? Calling
coming into existence a benefit *implies* that there must be a preexistent
state, i.e. some entity which benefits from the transformation into
existence. It is Fuckwit who advocates the LoL therefore it is he who must
begin by providing evidence of pre-existence
HOWEVER.. even if one stipulates that pre-existence is a real phenomenon,
there is no evidence that existence is an improvement over it, therefore it
cannot be called a benefit even then.
You anger at Ball is clouding your judgment. Fuckwit is actually saying
"Life is good" when he says life is a benefit, but fine points of semantics
and logic are lost on him. If it supports what he wants to believe he thinks
that makes it right. One may as well argue politics with the family dog.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:624ef7b5-3555-4c4c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> > Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
> > better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>
> > Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
> > ------------>
>
> > Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
>
> Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
> existed.
> --------->
>
> He didn't.
He did. He claimed coming into existence made him no better off than
HE WAS BEFORE.
Dutch
On Nov 16, 3:44 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:624ef7b5-3555-4c4c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> > Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
> > better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>
> > Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
> > ------------>
>
> > Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
>
> Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
> existed.
> --------->
>
> He didn't.
He did. He claimed coming into existence made him no better off than
HE WAS BEFORE.
--------->
That statement is based on granting the premise, stipulating, that there is
such a thing as pre-existence, however he stated explicitly many times that
there is no evidence for any such state, and nothing in his position would
suggest that he believes there is. The point being made it that calling
coming into existence a "benefit" necessarily implies a pre-existent state,
something that can't be demonstrated. BUT, EVEN IF there is such a state, we
do not know any qualitative details about it, therefore we cannot say that
coming into existence makes us better off (is a benefit).
C'mon, you're bright enough to see this.
>
> He was totally stumped when asked to explain it.
> ---->
>
> He wasn't because he didn't. His position is the same as mine and it comes
> straight from the Salt essay refuting the LoL. Have you read it? Calling
> coming into existence a benefit *implies* that there must be a preexistent
> state, i.e. some entity which benefits from the transformation into
> existence. It is Fuckwit who advocates the LoL therefore it is he who must
> begin by providing evidence of pre-existence
>
> HOWEVER.. even if one stipulates that pre-existence is a real phenomenon,
> there is no evidence that existence is an improvement over it, therefore
> it
> cannot be called a benefit even then.
>
> Your anger at Ball is clouding your judgment. Fuckwit is actually saying
Mr.Smartypants
Yeh, but the Goober couldn't.
He stated that he is no better off than HE WAS BEFORE.
Based on Goo's testimony we see that Goo's pre-existent state was as
fucked up as his current state.
Imagine moving from state-of-being to state-of-being and still
remaining a GOOBER!?
Too depressing to contemplate.
dh
It's another fact you don't like because it works against the
misnomer.
>. If that's not true
>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>> be answered. Such as:
>>
>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>> benefit.
>
>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
You need to explain how preexistence prevents things from
benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
nothing.
>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>
>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>> life you didn't exist.
>
>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I presume
>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting from
>*coming into* existence.
Many beings can and do benefit from both.
>>>Logic however says there is no
>>>"pre-existence", therefore coming into existence cannot be a benefit, but
>>>*even_if* there is, there is no way to know if it is better or worse than
>>>existence, so coming into existence *still* cannot be called a benefit.
>>>
>>>This solid logic refutes
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You can't answer either question you moron.
>> You don't even provide anything to think about, much less
>> anything worth believing.
>
>Already done, decisively and irrefutably.
LOL. It's not quite as funny this time. You have nothing as
you consistently demonstrate by presenting nothing, like this
example for example. Nothing.
>>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>>
>> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
>> for food.
>
>You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got to
>experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
You can't explain why consideration for the animals is any of
those things. You can't explain it because you're lying when you
say it is. You lie about it because having consideration works
against the misnomer. In fact, your anticonsideration is as
selfish as it's possible to be, as I've pointed out many times.
It still is, and always will be.
. . .
>> He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
>> out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
>> influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
>> aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
>> whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
>> has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
>> which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
>> which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
>> and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
>> are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
>> giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
>> the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
>> even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
>
>You're too stupid to live.
If you were in favor of AW you would agree with me.
dh
Hmmm...maybe Goo got hypnotised back to his preexistence and
that's how he thinks he found out...
>Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
It does sound like it. Then there's the possibility that he
was being dishonest. What could a couple of goobers gain by
persuading people to believe that life is not a benefit? It would
certainly benefit the elimination objective, but it works against
decent AW and increased consideration for animals. In fact,
consideration for the animals is specifically what the goobers
are trying to oppose.
dh
>
>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:624ef7b5-3555-4c4c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>> Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
>> better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>>
>> Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
>> ------------>
>>
>> Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
>
>
>Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
>existed.
>--------->
>
>He didn't.
>
>He was totally stumped when asked to explain it.
>---->
>
>He wasn't because he didn't.
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
>His position is the same as mine and it comes
>straight from the Salt essay refuting the LoL. Have you read it? Calling
>coming into existence a benefit *implies* that there must be a preexistent
>state,
But if that's true at all, it's only true for idiots. For
less stupid people it doesn't imply anything even close.
>i.e. some entity which benefits from the transformation into
>existence. It is Fuckwit who advocates the LoL therefore it is he who must
>begin by providing evidence of pre-existence
I'm not stupid enough to think that recognising the benefit
of life implies some sort of preexistence, and I deny the stupid
claim that it does.
>HOWEVER.. even if one stipulates that pre-existence is a real phenomenon,
There was a time before each of us existed on this planet,
and that time was our "preexistence" even though afawk it doesn't
have anything at all to do with our current existence and it
CERTAINLY doesn't appear to do anything to prevent our current
existence from being a benefit to us.
>there is no evidence that existence is an improvement over it, therefore it
>cannot be called a benefit even then.
That's a lie, since it is the benefit which makes all others
possible.
>You anger at Ball is clouding your judgment. Fuckwit is actually saying
>"Life is good" when he says life is a benefit,
"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch
"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"
"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
dh
>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
>On Nov 16, 3:44 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:624ef7b5-3555-4c4c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>> > Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
>> > better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>>
>> > Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
>> > ------------>
>>
>> > Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
>>
>> Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
>> existed.
>> --------->
>>
>> He didn't.
>
>
>He did. He claimed coming into existence made him no better off than
>HE WAS BEFORE.
>--------->
>
>That statement is based on granting the premise, stipulating, that there is
>such a thing as pre-existence, however he stated explicitly many times that
>there is no evidence for any such state, and nothing in his position would
>suggest that he believes there is. The point being made it that calling
>coming into existence a "benefit" necessarily implies a pre-existent state,
No it doesn't. You still need to explain how anything to do
with preexistence prevents existing beings from benefitting from
their existence, but you can't do it. You also can't explain how
anything that's not alive can benefit because life is the benefit
that makes all others possible.
>something that can't be demonstrated. BUT, EVEN IF there is such a state, we
>do not know any qualitative details about it, therefore we cannot say that
>coming into existence makes us better off (is a benefit).
Goo claimed to know:
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo
Mr.Smartypants
Exactly!!
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote
He stated that he is no better off than HE WAS BEFORE.
Oh for christsakes, fuck you and I am OUT.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:omm8g5dsqid8oluf0...@4ax.com...
It is NOT a fact, it is an illogical rhetorical expression. I don't like it
because using rhetorical arguments based on equivocations is a backwards
step in the effort to discredit AR, particularly when they are so
transparent a child could see through them.
>
>>. If that's not true
>>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>>> be answered. Such as:
>>>
>>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>>> benefit.
>>
>>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
>
> You need to explain how preexistence prevents things
There is no such thing as "pre-existence", that is why coming into existence
cannot possibly be a benefit.
from
> benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
> nothing.
Nothing actually "benefits from life", that is a silly rhetorical expression
one might use instead of "enjoy life" if it were not for the fact that you
are are using it within circular sophism, The LoL.
>>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>>
>>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>>> life you didn't exist.
>>
>>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I presume
>>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting from
>>*coming into* existence.
>
> Many beings can and do benefit from both.
Nope, that is meaningless.
>
>>>>Logic however says there is no
>>>>"pre-existence", therefore coming into existence cannot be a benefit,
>>>>but
>>>>*even_if* there is, there is no way to know if it is better or worse
>>>>than
>>>>existence, so coming into existence *still* cannot be called a benefit.
>>>>
>>>>This solid logic refutes
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You can't answer either question you moron.
>>> You don't even provide anything to think about, much less
>>> anything worth believing.
>>
>>Already done, decisively and irrefutably.
>
> LOL. It's not quite as funny this time. You have nothing as
> you consistently demonstrate by presenting nothing, like this
> example for example. Nothing.
It's all been done many times, you're just too damn stupid and stubborn to
get it, a deadly combination.
>
>>>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>>>
>>> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
>>> for food.
>>
>>You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got to
>>experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
>
> You can't explain why consideration for the animals is any of
> those things.
I already have, a hundred times. The only "consideration for the animals"
that is NOT shabby, self-serving equivocating is acts which result in better
conditions for animals, not using their existence as a moral poker chip.
You can't explain it because you're lying when you
> say it is. You lie about it because having consideration works
> against the misnomer. In fact, your anticonsideration is as
> selfish as it's possible to be, as I've pointed out many times.
> It still is, and always will be.
Nonsense, yes.
> . . .
>>> He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
>>> out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
>>> influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
>>> aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
>>> whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
>>> has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
>>> which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
>>> which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
>>> and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
>>> are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
>>> giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
>>> the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
>>> even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
>>
>>You're too stupid to live.
>
> If you were in favor of AW you would agree with me.
Fallacy. The LoL does absolutely nothing to benefit AW, nothing at all. It
is a stain and an embarrassment to legitimate opposition to AR.
Dutch
> consideration for the animals is specifically what the goobers
> are trying to oppose.
He knows what a line of horseshit that is but he doesn't want to break ranks
with you because the alliance against Ball is more important to him than his
principles.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:jqm8g5tl3trug8inj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:44:25 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:624ef7b5-3555-4c4c...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>On Nov 15, 3:51 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
>>> Perhaps it had something to do with the Goober stating that he is no
>>> better off now than HE WAS BEFORE.
>>>
>>> Clearly he had an epiphany concerning his own pre-existence.
>>> ------------>
>>>
>>> Clearly you see nothing clearly in this case.
>>
>>
>>Then *you* explain for the Goober why he clearly indicated he pre-
>>existed.
>>--------->
>>
>>He didn't.
>>
>>He was totally stumped when asked to explain it.
>>---->
>>
>>He wasn't because he didn't.
>
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state" - Goo
What a complete idiot you are.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:drm8g5lbfqehb9ko2...@4ax.com...
Yes, it does. An animal that exists cannot come into existence, it already
exists, therefore it can't benefit by something that cannot happen to it.
That only leaves some pre-existent soul of an animal or something which can
be this claimed beneficiary. The only things an animal can do are live and
die, and that is where we come in with AW.
Dutch
Exactly!!
->
Interesting, so you agree with him that people who avoid animal products are
guilty of not supporting the lives of animals? And that this is a valid
criticism of vegetarians?
dh
You can't evaluate whether or not something's cruel to the
animals unless you consider their end of the situation. You don't
want to consider it because sometimes it appears to be positive
for them, which works against the misnomer.
>>>. If that's not true
>>>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>>>> be answered. Such as:
>>>>
>>>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>>>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>>>> benefit.
>>>
>>>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>>>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
>>
>> You need to explain how preexistence prevents things
>
>There is no such thing as "pre-existence", that is why coming into existence
>cannot possibly be a benefit.
How does it prevent life from being a benefit to you right
now?
> from
>> benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
>> nothing.
>
>Nothing actually "benefits from life", that is a silly rhetorical expression
>one might use instead of "enjoy life" if it were not for the fact that you
>are are using it within circular sophism, The LoL.
How then do you want people to think about livestock without
considering their lives?
>>>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>>>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>>>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>>>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>>>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>>>
>>>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>>>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>>>> life you didn't exist.
>>>
>>>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I presume
>>>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting from
>>>*coming into* existence.
>>
>> Many beings can and do benefit from both.
>
>Nope,
What prevents you from benefitting from living? What prevents
you from benefitting from your existence?
. . .
>>>>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>>>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>>>>
>>>> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
>>>> for food.
>>>
>>>You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got to
>>>experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
>>
>> You can't explain why consideration for the animals is any of
>> those things.
>
>I already have, a hundred times. The only "consideration for the animals"
>that is NOT shabby, self-serving equivocating is acts which result in better
>conditions for animals, not using their existence as a moral poker chip.
Why do you only want to use their deaths as a moral poker
chip, but not their lives? Other than because that supports
elimination of course, what other reason(s) do you think you
have?
>You can't explain it because you're lying when you
>> say it is. You lie about it because having consideration works
>> against the misnomer. In fact, your anticonsideration is as
>> selfish as it's possible to be, as I've pointed out many times.
>> It still is, and always will be.
>
>Nonsense, yes.
>
>> . . .
>>>> He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
>>>> out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
>>>> influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
>>>> aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
>>>> whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
>>>> has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
>>>> which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
>>>> which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
>>>> and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
>>>> are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
>>>> giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
>>>> the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
>>>> even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
>>>
>>>You're too stupid to live.
>>
>> If you were in favor of AW you would agree with me.
>
>Fallacy. The LoL does absolutely nothing to benefit AW, nothing at all.
In contrast to that lie, it's a necessary part of it.
>It is a stain and an embarrassment to legitimate opposition to AR.
LOL! It considers a huge aspect of the situation that works
directly against elimination, which is exactly why you're opposed
to it.
dh
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:43:18 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 18, 1:38�pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>> What could a couple of goobers gain by
>>> persuading people to believe that life is not a benefit? It would
>>> certainly benefit the elimination objective, but it works against
>>> decent AW and increased consideration for animals. In fact,
>>> consideration for the animals is specifically what the goobers
>>> are trying to oppose.-
>>
>>
>>Exactly!!
>
>Interesting, so you agree with him that people who avoid animal products are
>guilty of not supporting the lives of animals?
He's probably aware that they don't support the lives of
those they deliberately try to avoid supporting, and my guess
would be he thinks it's good to be "guilty" of it. I can relate
to the concept in that I think it's good to be "guilty" of not
buying battery farmed eggs. But then I go on to areas
eliminationists can not and feel it's good to be guilty OF buying
cage free eggs.
>And that this is a valid criticism of vegetarians?
He didn't say it was. And if he really believes in the
misnomer then he should feel that avoidance is more worthy of
praise than criticism regardless of how anyone else feels about
it.
What he agreed with is that you goobers are arguing in favor
of the misnomer, NOT AW!
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> consideration for the animals is specifically what the goobers
>> are trying to oppose.
>
>He knows what a line of horseshit that is
That is SPECIFICALLY what you goobers have been trying to
oppose for at least nine years you moron:
"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to an animal"
- "Dutch"
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - "Dutch"
""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo
"It is 100% irrelevant that the poor fowl "get to
experience life"." - Goo
"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
Are you all of a sudden trying to pretend you want to change the
position you've held all this time or something?
dh
In contrast to that lie we have the individuals themselves,
like you, and me. You need to explain what about your
preexistence prevents you from benefitting from your existence
now, as I continue to point out.
>The only things an animal can do are live and
>die, and that is where we come in with AW.
That's what AW considers, but you only want to consider the
fact that they die which is the eliminationist position.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
No stupid. I'm agreeing with him that you and Goo (who may be the same
poster) spend all your time trying to prevent people considering the
lives of animals and "food" animals especially.
Mr.Smartypants
Beautiful, just beautiful.;o)
Remember when Goo made that statement? After spending months arguing
that existence isn't necessarily better than non-existence (pre-
existence) he then spent months trying to "prove" pre-existence is
impossible simply because *he* denies it which should satisfy everyone
as proof, then he up and admits that *HE* pre-existed!
What a goober.
..........and Douche is his disciple......a goober in the making.
Dutch
----------------------->
"consideration" means completely different things to you and fuckwit,
opposite actually. You don't care, you just know that Ball wounded your ego.
Dutch
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:28:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> LOL!!! It certainly APPEARS very clear that life itself is
>>>>> the benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>
>>>>That's rhetorical, not logical. That is another dishonest tactic you use
>>>>without understanding what you're doing, like equivocation.
>>>
>>> It's another fact you don't like because it works against the
>>> misnomer.
>>
>>It is NOT a fact, it is an illogical rhetorical expression. I don't like
>>it
>>because using rhetorical arguments based on equivocations is a backwards
>>step in the effort to discredit AR, particularly when they are so
>>transparent a child could see through them.
>
> You can't evaluate whether or not something's cruel to the
> animals unless you consider their end of the situation.
Nonsense, the fact that livestock animals "experience life" contributes
nothing to the debate, once those animals are alive the same set of
obligations fall on us as humans.
> You don't
> want to consider it because sometimes it appears to be positive
> for them, which works against the misnomer.
More nonsense, I know that some farm animal experience animal pleasures,
although not as many as you pretend, not these days. That does not add
anything to the debate, it is a classic red herring. AW deals with animals
that exist or that will exist anyway, it does not state that animals "ought
to" be born or that we can count their birth as a moral victory.
>>>>. If that's not true
>>>>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>>>>> be answered. Such as:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>>>>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>>>>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
>>>
>>> You need to explain how preexistence prevents things
>>
>>There is no such thing as "pre-existence", that is why coming into
>>existence
>>cannot possibly be a benefit.
>
> How does it prevent life from being a benefit to you right
> now?
My existence, my life, *is* me, how can it be a benefit to me? You're
talking more nonsense, rhetorical gibberish.
>
>> from
>>> benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
>>> nothing.
>>
>>Nothing actually "benefits from life", that is a silly rhetorical
>>expression
>>one might use instead of "enjoy life" if it were not for the fact that you
>>are are using it within circular sophism, The LoL.
>
> How then do you want people to think about livestock without
> considering their lives?
Think about the quality of their lives, that is all we need to and should
do. If we do that then raising animals as food is perfectly moral. Claiming
a bonus because they "experience life" is nothing more than a cheap ploy
that gains nothing and loses credibility.
>
>>>>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>>>>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>>>>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>>>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>>>>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>>>>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>>>>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>>>>> life you didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I
>>>>presume
>>>>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting
>>>>from
>>>>*coming into* existence.
>>>
>>> Many beings can and do benefit from both.
>>
>>Nope,
>
> What prevents you from benefitting from living? What prevents
> you from benefitting from your existence?
Logic. If you mean "enjoy life" then just say that.
I enjoy life, and some livestock animals enjoy life, at least some of the
time. But that is much different than benefitting by "coming into
existence', which is illogical.
>>>>>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>>>>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
>>>>> for food.
>>>>
>>>>You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got
>>>>to
>>>>experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
>>>
>>> You can't explain why consideration for the animals is any of
>>> those things.
>>
>>I already have, a hundred times. The only "consideration for the animals"
>>that is NOT shabby, self-serving equivocating is acts which result in
>>better
>>conditions for animals, not using their existence as a moral poker chip.
>
> Why do you only want to use their deaths as a moral poker
> chip, but not their lives?
Their deaths are not a moral poker chip, that is a claim made by ARAs. It is
morally significant that *we kill them* but that is immediately justified
because we do it for a moral reason, to obtain food to meet our needs. The
fact that animals are alive is true but a phony argument.
> Other than because that supports
> elimination of course, what other reason(s) do you think you
> have?
I told you, because it is cheap sophism.
>>You can't explain it because you're lying when you
>>> say it is. You lie about it because having consideration works
>>> against the misnomer. In fact, your anticonsideration is as
>>> selfish as it's possible to be, as I've pointed out many times.
>>> It still is, and always will be.
>>
>>Nonsense, yes.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>> He should agree with you. You should agree with me. I point
>>>>> out that one of the most basic aspects of the whole thing is the
>>>>> influence it has ON THE ANIMALS, and that their lives in all
>>>>> aspects of the word are extremely significant in regards to
>>>>> whether or not certain practices are cruel TO THEM. Anyone who
>>>>> has the slightest interest in AW should appreciate that fact
>>>>> which means that you would if you really were telling the truth
>>>>> which you should be so you should agree with me, but you're lying
>>>>> and favor the misnomer over AW so you disagree. ONLY people who
>>>>> are opposed to livestock completely have any reason to oppose
>>>>> giving consideration to their lives, so if Mr S is in favor of
>>>>> the misnomer he should certainly agree with your goobal position,
>>>>> even if he doesn't think much of you goobers personally.
>>>>
>>>>You're too stupid to live.
>>>
>>> If you were in favor of AW you would agree with me.
>>
>>Fallacy. The LoL does absolutely nothing to benefit AW, nothing at all.
>
> In contrast to that lie, it's a necessary part of it.
Yet you have never been able to demonstrate how it has benefitted a single
animal, becuase it hasn't, it can't.
>
>>It is a stain and an embarrassment to legitimate opposition to AR.
>
> LOL! It considers a huge aspect of the situation that works
> directly against elimination, which is exactly why you're opposed
> to it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz same old strawman.
Dutch
Beautiful, just beautiful.;o)
What a goober.
-----------------
You used to be a nutcase, but I never took you to be this stupid.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Please explain is some detail exactly how you think he did that.
Something tells me that this will be like Dave asking Goobs to explain
why he (Goobs) disagrees with himself.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Actually if you are looking for "stupid" you'd do well to examine
Goo's goobal absurdities.
He maintained that no thing benefits from coming into the present
existence. At the same time I asked him once what he thought he was
before his present existence.
He replied, "nothing".
So there you have it. Your mentor Goobernicus was "nothing" prior to
existing now and gained nothing from it which means he's still a
"nothing". Quite an admission on his part.
Of course he recanted later as you well know and claimed he pre-
existed. Since he always stated that there is no benefit to this
existence we are able to determine exactly *what* he pre-existed as.
He was a GOOBER, the same as he is now.......since this existence,
according to him provided no benefit.
What a pair of goobers you two are.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:f90635bd-6fd2-4ca4...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
---------->
You know exactly how it happened.
Something tells me that this will be like Dave asking Goobs to explain
why he (Goobs) disagrees with himself.
----------->
You've not only abandoned your principles and your intellect, you've become
as trite and boring as fuckwit.
Go back to being that loopy anti-milk nut, at least you had integrity then.
Dutch
He replied, "nothing".
----------------------->
You need a break.
dh
He did make the claim that:
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
which appears to be an extremely stupid idea. Beings can and do
benefit from their existence REGARDLESS of whether or not there's
a preexistent state. In contrast to what Goo lied though I
believe it is true that: The only way that the concept of not
being able to benefit from existence can begin to make sense at
all is if one assumes a pre-existent state.
>What a goober.
>
>..........and Douche is his disciple......a goober in the making.
Unless they are the same goober....it's still hard to figure
whether it's more likely that two people could be so stupid and
stupidly try to defend the same stupidity, or Goo has carried on
another one of his misidentity dishonesties successfully for all
of these years...still complimenting himselves and congratulating
himselves as we've seen him do so very often in the past...
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:28:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> LOL!!! It certainly APPEARS very clear that life itself is
>>>>>> the benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>>
>>>>>That's rhetorical, not logical. That is another dishonest tactic you use
>>>>>without understanding what you're doing, like equivocation.
>>>>
>>>> It's another fact you don't like because it works against the
>>>> misnomer.
>>>
>>>It is NOT a fact, it is an illogical rhetorical expression. I don't like
>>>it
>>>because using rhetorical arguments based on equivocations is a backwards
>>>step in the effort to discredit AR, particularly when they are so
>>>transparent a child could see through them.
>>
>> You can't evaluate whether or not something's cruel to the
>> animals unless you consider their end of the situation.
>
>Nonsense, the fact that livestock animals "experience life" contributes
>nothing to the debate,
In contrast to that most blatant of lies it contributes
billions of lives to the debate, which of course is why you hate
having the fact factored in because that works against the
misnomer as I've pointed out countless times.
>once those animals are alive the same set of
>obligations fall on us as humans.
>
>> You don't
>> want to consider it because sometimes it appears to be positive
>> for them, which works against the misnomer.
>
>More nonsense, I know that some farm animal experience animal pleasures,
>although not as many as you pretend, not these days. That does not add
>anything to the debate,
In contrast to that most blatant of lies it contributes
billions of lives to the debate, which of course is why you hate
having the fact factored in because that works against the
misnomer as I've pointed out countless times.
>it is a classic red herring. AW deals with animals
>that exist or that will exist anyway, it does not state that animals "ought
>to" be born or that we can count their birth as a moral victory.
>
>
>>>>>. If that's not true
>>>>>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>>>>>> be answered. Such as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>>>>>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>>>>>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already occurred.
>>>>
>>>> You need to explain how preexistence prevents things
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as "pre-existence", that is why coming into
>>>existence
>>>cannot possibly be a benefit.
>>
>> How does it prevent life from being a benefit to you right
>> now?
>
>My existence, my life, *is* me, how can it be a benefit to me?
In every single way you benefit from anything. Of course I
can't believe you're SO stupid that you can't comprehend the
fact.
>You're
>talking more nonsense, rhetorical gibberish.
Are you really stupid enough to think I believe you're too
stupid to comprehend the fact that you benefit from your life?
And even if living in a mental facility is so overly restrictive
that it makes your life of negative value, life itself is STILL a
benefit even though the life you're living may not be. Well,
maybe you are too stupid to understand it, but for a normal
person it's not so ask one of your nurses to help you.
>>> from
>>>> benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
>>>> nothing.
>>>
>>>Nothing actually "benefits from life", that is a silly rhetorical
>>>expression
>>>one might use instead of "enjoy life" if it were not for the fact that you
>>>are are using it within circular sophism, The LoL.
>>
>> How then do you want people to think about livestock without
>> considering their lives?
>
>Think about the quality of their lives, that is all we need to and should
>do.
They go together as one. DUH!
>If we do that then raising animals as food is perfectly moral. Claiming
>a bonus because they "experience life" is nothing more than a cheap ploy
>that gains nothing and loses credibility.
In contrast to that most blatant of lies it reveals how
selfishly dishonest it is for you people to ONLY consider the
animals' deaths, without giving any consideration to what they
get out of the situation.
>>>>>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>>>>>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>>>>>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>>>>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>>>>>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>>>>>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>>>>>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>>>>>> life you didn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I
>>>>>presume
>>>>>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting
>>>>>from
>>>>>*coming into* existence.
>>>>
>>>> Many beings can and do benefit from both.
>>>
>>>Nope,
>>
>> What prevents you from benefitting from living? What prevents
>> you from benefitting from your existence?
>
>Logic. If you mean "enjoy life" then just say that.
I don't you moron, but if you think you can explain what
about your preexistence prevents you from enjoying life then try
explaining that.
>I enjoy life, and some livestock animals enjoy life, at least some of the
>time.
So far it looks like nothing about preexistence prevents
anything from benefitting from life, as I've pointed out
countless times.
>But that is much different than benefitting by "coming into
>existence', which is illogical.
Now you need to explain how anything that doesn't come into
existence can benefit, but you can't, so again you have nothing.
Wow, not surprisingly you've just told another blatant lie. How
many is that in this one post? Fuck it, I'm so used to your lies
I'm not even going back to count them all this time.
>>>>>>>the slimiest sophism ever concocted to justify
>>>>>>>exploiting animals, "The Logic of the Larder",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words: Consideration for the lives of animals raised
>>>>>> for food.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean assuming a moral victory because those particular animals got
>>>>>to
>>>>>experience life. That is shabby, self-serving equivocating.
>>>>
>>>> You can't explain why consideration for the animals is any of
>>>> those things.
>>>
>>>I already have, a hundred times. The only "consideration for the animals"
>>>that is NOT shabby, self-serving equivocating is acts which result in
>>>better
>>>conditions for animals, not using their existence as a moral poker chip.
>>
>> Why do you only want to use their deaths as a moral poker
>> chip, but not their lives?
>
>Their deaths are not a moral poker chip, that is a claim made by ARAs. It is
>morally significant that *we kill them* but that is immediately justified
>because we do it for a moral reason, to obtain food to meet our needs. The
>fact that animals are alive is true but a phony argument.
That's a blatant lie.
>> Other than because that supports
>> elimination of course, what other reason(s) do you think you
>> have?
>
>I told you, because it is cheap sophism.
That's a blatant lie.
It is part of the process of determining which animals can
legally be raised and which can not. For example people can't
raise bald eagles for food, but they can raise cattle. It was
decided that it's ok to raise cattle for food, which legally puts
the LoL in effect. The same is true of raising dogs as pets, but
not for food. I'm sure you're too stupid to understand that
too--or at least you will pretend to be whether you honestly are
or not--but that's how it is. The LoL is in effect legally in
billions of situations, every time a human raises an animal.
>>>It is a stain and an embarrassment to legitimate opposition to AR.
>>
>> LOL! It considers a huge aspect of the situation that works
>> directly against elimination, which is exactly why you're opposed
>> to it.
>
>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz same old strawman.
It's a fact you hate. Notice that your posts consist almost
entirely of blatant lies and attempts to oppose facts that you
hate, and all of it in support of the misnomer.
dh
Neither of "them?" can explain anything at all it appears.
They are often quick to say they've done something in the past,
that they can't do now and can't provide the slightest hint of
ever having done. Do we have examples of Goo showing his idiocy?
Yes, in fact quite a few of them. Do we have any examples of that
same Goober kicking your ass or mine? No, not a single one. Do we
have any examples of "Dutch" lying? Well, this appears to be a
good one.
dh
>"Mr.Smartypants" pointed out:
>
>>Actually if you are looking for "stupid" you'd do well to examine
>>Goo's goobal absurdities.
>>
>>He maintained that no thing benefits from coming into the present
>>existence. At the same time I asked him once what he thought he was
>>before his present existence.
>>
>>He replied, "nothing".
>>
>>So there you have it. Your mentor Goobernicus was "nothing" prior to
>>existing now and gained nothing from it which means he's still a
>>"nothing". Quite an admission on his part.
>>
>>Of course he recanted later as you well know and claimed he pre-
>>existed. Since he always stated that there is no benefit to this
>>existence we are able to determine exactly *what* he pre-existed as.
>>He was a GOOBER, the same as he is now.......since this existence,
>>according to him provided no benefit.
>>
>>What a pair of goobers you two are.
>----------------------->
>
>You need a break.
Not yet. We haven't gotten to the stupidest parts yet.
LOL...yes it is hard to believe but his stupidity and ignorance
runs even deeper than what we've already been laughing at.
Remember some of his idiotic beliefs about animals are so stupid
that even you have hinted you might not agree with every stupid
one of them. We've been enjoying Goobal stupidity after Goobal
stupidity no doubt, and now let's be amused by...
The Stupidest of Goo:
"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo
"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
"No animals anticipate." - Goo
"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo
"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo
"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo
"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo
"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo
_________________________________________________________
Ron asked:
>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?
Goo replied:
Yes.
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
Ron pointed out:
>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>PET FOOD.
Goo replied:
Some are.
���������������������������������������������������������
Derek
>AW deals with animals that exist
So far so good.
>or that will exist anyway
No. If you're going to presume animal welfare deals with
animals that will exist, then you have no argument against
Harrison who presumes exactly the same thing, you idiot.
Animals that will exist don't exist, and no welfare can be
given to something that doesn't exist. Harrison thinks it
can, and it's plainly obvious now that you think it can as
well. Good luck with that. You deserve all you're going
to get if Harrison can get a handle on what you've just
admitted.
Mr.Smartypants
I'd really like to our current Goober try to explain how and why the
original Goober disagreed with himself.
The original Goober couoldn't do it. We'd be met with stunned silence
when we'd ask him to try.
>
>
> >> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> >> its quality of live" - Goo
>
> >> Are you all of a sudden trying to pretend you want to change the
> >> position you've held all this time or something?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr.Smartypants
I'm always amazed to hear of us having gotten our asses kicked when
neither of us felt anything or noticed anything.
Neither can we find any archived evidence of it nor it seems can
anyone who claims it happened.
More dishonesties from the Goober(s).
dh
That sort of tendency is the strangest in a collection of
strange tendencies these goobers have, which is to try denying
exactly what they have most blatantly been doing as if it's
possible that someone COULD believe them. With all the evidence
of "Dutch" arguing anticonsideration for the lives of livestock,
why would he even try to pretend he's been doing anything else?
Mr.Smartypants
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:35:34 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 18, 10:40 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote
> >> On Nov 18, 1:38 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> > consideration for the animals is specifically what the goobers
> >> > are trying to oppose.-
>
> >> Exactly!!
> >> ->
>
> >> Interesting, so you agree with him that people who avoid animal products are
> >> guilty of not supporting the lives of animals? And that this is a valid
> >> criticism of vegetarians?
>
> >No stupid. I'm agreeing with him that you and Goo (who may be the same
> >poster) spend all your time trying to prevent people considering the
> >lives of animals and "food" animals especially.
>
> That sort of tendency is the strangest in a collection of
> strange tendencies these goobers have, which is to try denying
> exactly what they have most blatantly been doing as if it's
> possible that someone COULD believe them. With all the evidence
> of "Dutch" arguing anticonsideration for the lives of livestock,
It's an absolute mystery. The "WHY" of what those goobers do has
always escaped me.............and as you know it does no good to ask a
goober to explain why he disagrees with himselves.
Dutch
"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:928jg5hf5lifqm1v4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>AW deals with animals that exist
>
> So far so good.
>
>>or that will exist anyway
>
> No. If you're going to presume animal welfare deals with
> animals that will exist, then you have no argument against
> Harrison who presumes exactly the same thing, you idiot.
No he doesn't, at all. He says that coming into existence is a benefit *to
the animal*. That is illogical, as Salt explained.
> Animals that will exist don't exist, and no welfare can be
> given to something that doesn't exist. Harrison thinks it
> can, and it's plainly obvious now that you think it can as
> well. Good luck with that. You deserve all you're going
> to get if Harrison can get a handle on what you've just
> admitted.
You're wrong. Welfare measures like bigger pens are designed to benefit
animals that *will be* bred in the future as much or more than for current
animals. The welfare campaigns of PeTA are aimed to help future generations
of animals. That does not make it a moral imperative to breed these future
animals as he suggests. AW is only relevant *if* animals are to be brought
into the world, it is not a goal in itself.
You're rusty, but welcome back.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:lr3jg5h0ogr078om9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:28:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!! It certainly APPEARS very clear that life itself is
>>>>>>> the benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's rhetorical, not logical. That is another dishonest tactic you
>>>>>>use
>>>>>>without understanding what you're doing, like equivocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's another fact you don't like because it works against the
>>>>> misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>It is NOT a fact, it is an illogical rhetorical expression. I don't like
>>>>it
>>>>because using rhetorical arguments based on equivocations is a backwards
>>>>step in the effort to discredit AR, particularly when they are so
>>>>transparent a child could see through them.
>>>
>>> You can't evaluate whether or not something's cruel to the
>>> animals unless you consider their end of the situation.
>>
>>Nonsense, the fact that livestock animals "experience life" contributes
>>nothing to the debate,
>
> In contrast to that most blatant of lies it contributes
> billions of lives to the debate, which of course is why you hate
> having the fact factored in because that works against the
> misnomer as I've pointed out countless times.
It doesn't contribute a single life, or anything else.Those animals are
alive whether you take credit for it or not.
>>once those animals are alive the same set of
>>obligations fall on us as humans.
>>
>>> You don't
>>> want to consider it because sometimes it appears to be positive
>>> for them, which works against the misnomer.
>>
>>More nonsense, I know that some farm animal experience animal pleasures,
>>although not as many as you pretend, not these days. That does not add
>>anything to the debate,
>
> In contrast to that most blatant of lies it contributes
> billions of lives to the debate, which of course is why you hate
> having the fact factored in because that works against the
> misnomer as I've pointed out countless times.
strawman
>
>>it is a classic red herring. AW deals with animals
>>that exist or that will exist anyway, it does not state that animals
>>"ought
>>to" be born or that we can count their birth as a moral victory.
>>
>>
>>>>>>. If that's not true
>>>>>>> LOL...then you as always still have some questions that need to
>>>>>>> be answered. Such as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. If you think life is not the benefit that makes all others
>>>>>>> possible, explain how you think something that's not alive can
>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It can't, that's why coming into existence itself can't possibly be a
>>>>>>benefit, because nothing is alive until after life has already
>>>>>>occurred.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to explain how preexistence prevents things
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing as "pre-existence", that is why coming into
>>>>existence
>>>>cannot possibly be a benefit.
>>>
>>> How does it prevent life from being a benefit to you right
>>> now?
>>
>>My existence, my life, *is* me, how can it be a benefit to me?
>
> In every single way you benefit from anything. Of course I
> can't believe you're SO stupid that you can't comprehend the
> fact.
I benefit from food, water, money, good music and books but not from "my
life", that is gibberish.
>
>>You're
>>talking more nonsense, rhetorical gibberish.
>
> Are you really stupid enough to think I believe you're too
> stupid to comprehend the fact that you benefit from your life?
gibberish
> And even if living in a mental facility is so overly restrictive
> that it makes your life of negative value, life itself is STILL a
> benefit even though the life you're living may not be. Well,
> maybe you are too stupid to understand it, but for a normal
> person it's not so ask one of your nurses to help you.
>
>>>> from
>>>>> benefitting from life when it does occur. You can't. You have
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing actually "benefits from life", that is a silly rhetorical
>>>>expression
>>>>one might use instead of "enjoy life" if it were not for the fact that
>>>>you
>>>>are are using it within circular sophism, The LoL.
>>>
>>> How then do you want people to think about livestock without
>>> considering their lives?
>>
>>Think about the quality of their lives, that is all we need to and should
>>do.
>
> They go together as one. DUH!
Considering"their lives" is a self-serving little mind game you're playing.
It's meaningless.
>>If we do that then raising animals as food is perfectly moral. Claiming
>>a bonus because they "experience life" is nothing more than a cheap ploy
>>that gains nothing and loses credibility.
>
> In contrast to that most blatant of lies it reveals how
> selfishly dishonest it is for you people to ONLY consider the
> animals' deaths, without giving any consideration to what they
> get out of the situation.
Please explain what "considering what they get out of the situation" does
for them. I have asked you a hundred times and you haven't answered yet. Of
course you'll dodge the question again because the answer is nothing.
>
>>>>>>> 2. You need to explain how your suppose preexistent state
>>>>>>> prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. If you
>>>>>>> don't benefit but it's for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>>>>>> your preexistent state then that doesn't count, but instead you
>>>>>>> need to explain how your own preexistence prevents you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your existence now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you die maybe it should be marked on your grave that you
>>>>>>> didn't believe you benefitted from living, because prior to your
>>>>>>> life you didn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Benefit from living" is itself a clumsy rhetorical phrase which I
>>>>>>presume
>>>>>>means enjoying life, but it is completely different from benefitting
>>>>>>from
>>>>>>*coming into* existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many beings can and do benefit from both.
>>>>
>>>>Nope,
>>>
>>> What prevents you from benefitting from living? What prevents
>>> you from benefitting from your existence?
>>
>>Logic. If you mean "enjoy life" then just say that.
>
> I don't you moron, but if you think you can explain what
> about your preexistence prevents you from enjoying life then try
> explaining that.
There's no such thing as "pre-existence" idiot. That's why coming into
existence cannot be a benefit.
>
>>I enjoy life, and some livestock animals enjoy life, at least some of the
>>time.
>
> So far it looks like nothing about preexistence prevents
> anything from benefitting from life, as I've pointed out
> countless times.
stupidly
>
>>But that is much different than benefitting by "coming into
>>existence', which is illogical.
>
> Now you need to explain how anything that doesn't come into
> existence can benefit
There is no such thing as somthing that doesn't come into existence.
, but you can't, so again you have nothing.
> Wow, not surprisingly you've just told another blatant lie. How
> many is that in this one post? Fuck it, I'm so used to your lies
> I'm not even going back to count them all this time.
You are the most confused, stupid person I have even encountered.
It is the naked truth you are afraid to admit, because it will mean you have
wasted ten years of your life shovelling shit.
That was new line of nonsense. Legality has nothing to do with it.
>
>>>>It is a stain and an embarrassment to legitimate opposition to AR.
>>>
>>> LOL! It considers a huge aspect of the situation that works
>>> directly against elimination, which is exactly why you're opposed
>>> to it.
>>
>>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz same old strawman.
>
> It's a fact you hate. Notice that your posts consist almost
> entirely of blatant lies and attempts to oppose facts that you
> hate, and all of it in support of the misnomer.
There is no misnomer, except in your confused, shallow excuse for a mind.