Fuckwit David Harrison: "I am incompetent and clueless."

[George Plimpton]

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Derek Nash.


"I'm not good at all this--I don't know any rules of
debate, or how to present a logical argument, or even
what all I don't know how to do. So please excuse my
inability to converse properly."
Fuckwit David Harrison 23 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/6mvnyj

"I admit that I'm very weak in the area of presenting
my ideas...I have as much 'right' to post my spew as
everyone else does."
Fuckwit David Harrison 30 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/5rzbva

"I lack a lot of skills really though. I don't know anything
about proper debate, or constructing a convincing
argument, or any of the basic things."
Fuckwit David Harrison 25 July 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5qfkco

"I am 41 years old, and skinny. I drink about a 6 pack
of beer each night, and probably not nearly enough
water--less water than beer."
Fuckwit David Harrison 28 May 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6nlz5t


He also blabbers on endlessly about people being "below" him in some
kind of understanding:

That you who are below me are in an even worse position than I am
is one point.
http://tinyurl.com/75gxd3z

That's because you're more stupid about this than I am and you can't
get up to my level.
http://tinyurl.com/82alxun

Well, I guess you're fit to discuss it with other people who have
the same mental limitation, but not with those who don't.
[Implication that Fuckwit doesn't have such a "restriction"]
http://tinyurl.com/ct5ujhe

You don't believe it means anything because you can't comprehend
how it does mean something and that's a limitation of YOUR brain,
not a restriction that I somehow magically placed on the overly
challenged little thing.
http://tinyurl.com/bqf2q59


There are many more. Fuckwit continually blabbers - bullshits - about
possessing some "higher" level of understanding, or of not putting
"restrictions" or "limitations" on his thinking that he claims others
do. That is, he imagines himself to have superior insight and
understanding, when in fact he is literally a mental cripple, due to 1)
being of limited intelligence, and 2) undeducated, and 3) having *chose*
willfully to be stupid.

[George Plimpton]

[lighting tech at Mega Amusement]

What a stupid fuckwit Fuckwit is!

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit works as a lighting tech in a bar:

corp/guard people wanted to perform in large nightclub near ATL, GA

Posted by David Harrison on February 9, 2012 at 6:02pm
View Discussions

Hi, I work in a large nightclub just north of Atlanta and we're
hoping to do some dubstep parties once a month on Tuesday nights,
second Tuesday of the month starting in June. It would be awesome
if we could get some corp people to do some performing. The idea
is to make the stage like a public park in a weird world, with
people walking through and stopping to play something now and
then, and guard people doing some guard and dance stuff. The drums
and guard stuff should be blended in to look like it's part of
everyday life the way Stomp works it in, and any Stomp type ideas
using everyday stuff for equipment in addition to traditional
drums and guard stuff would be great. We want to have some
featured prepared parts as well as adlib stuff, mostly small
groups and individual and duet type things... It's a chance to
blend corp/winter guard ideas with electronic music and present it
in a large nightclub environment, so it's not only an opportunity
for corp people to try different ideas but also for nightclub
people to get some exposure to what corp and guard have to offer.
Any help with finding people who want to get involved would be
very much appreciated! It will be at Wild Bill's in Duluth, GA.
There is no age limit...at least you can't be too old. If parents
want to do it with their kids it would be great, but remember it's
an adult atmosphere and there will be much profanity. The first
show will be a Skrillex party and all major performances will be
to Skrillex music so if you want to do this please get familiar
with it if you're not already and think about routines you can do
to it, and between songs as segues. Doors open at 9:00 and the
party will start at 11:30 going til 1:00, beginning the second
Tuesday in June (I hope :-) My apologies if this post was
inappropriate for this forum. Thank you for any help or
suggestions! David "Killer" Harrison no...@bellsouth.net marched
with JSU Southerners and Chapter V in the previous century

http://colorguardhistoricalsociety.ning.com/profile/DavidHarrison


Yeah, that's sure who I'm going to turn to for an understanding of
cosmology and ethics <chortle>

[lighting tech at Mega Amusement]

Way back in 1999, Fuckwit wrote:

Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations
imposed on many animals that are raised for the production
of food, there are also many animals in the food industry
that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking
encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in
the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That
is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an
incorrect impression of reality.

This is not really surprising, since the main goal of
the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these
animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to
experience life. That approach is illogical, since if it is
wrong to end the lives of animals, it is *far worse* to keep
those same animals from getting to have any life at all.

http://tinyurl.com/cvscjwo


In all these years, Fuckwit has never been able to say *why* it's worse
for the animals, or bad in any way, if the animals never exist at all.

What a stupid fuckwit.

[lighting tech at Mega Amusement]

[Rupert]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit more productive to do with your time?

[Derek]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 29, 2012 10:56:42 PM UTC+2, lighting tech at Mega Amusement wrote:
>> On 6/29/2012 12:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks and a tip of the hat to Derek Nash.

My pleasure.

Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
farm yard?

Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.

[George Plimpton]

What obsession?


>

[Rupert]

Yes, that point had occurred to me.

>
>
> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
>
> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
>
> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.

I think you're over-reacting a little bit.

If you're fed up with doing whatever you have to do when you reply to my posts, obviously you have the option of not replying to them. I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from doing so outweighs the burden. If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.

[Rupert]

It certainly seems like an obsession to me.

[George Plimpton]

That's an interesting and witty way of putting it. And of course,
that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.

>
> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.

It's a measure of his arrogance. That sort of arrogance frequently is a
byproduct of a privileged upbringing.

[George Plimpton]

In what way?

[Rupert]

It seems to me that you people are not being very logical. Either Derek is being rational in replying to my posts, or he is not. If he is being rational in doing it, then that presumably means that he is getting some kind of benefit from it which outweighs whatever burden he takes on in the process. That means that I am doing him a favour by posting, giving him an opportunity to get this net benefit. I am not under any obligation to do him even more of a favour by bothering to download a news client, thereby relieving him of the burden of having to tidy up my posts. I may or may not bother to do that; I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. That is not a sign of arrogance. Rather, it seems to me that you people are the ones being arrogant by thinking that you are entitled to complain about it.

On the other hand, it may be that Derek does not get a net benefit from replying to my posts. But that suggests that he would be more rational to simply stop replying, at least until I get a news client, which is definitely well within his power. And again, that doesn't really mean I am being arrogant in not having gotten around to downloading a news client yet.

My upbringing may possibly have been privileged compared to yours and Derek's. But it was not particularly privileged compared with just about everyone I went to school and university with. And I don't think that you can plausibly claim that a large number of these people have become arrogant as a result of having a privileged upbringing.

[Rupert]

Well, you've been constantly making posts about David Harrison over a period of a number of years, endlessly going on about how stupid he is and what the shortcomings are in his arguments, even though it's not especially interesting and you're not saying anything that you haven't said many times before. In particular, you made about six posts in this thread before anyone else bothered to reply.

[George Plimpton]

I think if it as comparable to a good personal hygiene habit like
flossing my teeth.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:33:49 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> I think if it as comparable to a good personal hygiene habit like
>
> flossing my teeth.

That's very irrational.

[George Plimpton]

How so?

[Rupert]

If you can't see it, it is unlikely that anything I say will be helpful.

[George Plimpton]

Give it your best effort, and I'll do my best to try to follow along.

[Derek]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:40:53 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 29, 2012 10:56:42 PM UTC+2, lighting tech at Mega Amusement wrote:

[]

>>>> What a stupid fuckwit Fuckwit is!
>>>
>>> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>> Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>> more productive to do with your time?
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>> farm yard?
>
>That's an interesting and witty way of putting it. And of course,
>that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.

I don't think he'll ever convince me it belongs inside while he holds
the way open for another 14 or so years here. It's a tragedy, really,
that he's wasted all these years believing he's developed a clever
device to trap vegetarians with, when all the while he's never
caught a single one because of the gaping flaw built into it. 14 years
baiting it and never a single bite!

>> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
>> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
>> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.
>
>It's a measure of his arrogance. That sort of arrogance frequently is a
>byproduct of a privileged upbringing.

I can always see it.

[Derek]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert

<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:32:03 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>> >Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>> >more productive to do with your time?
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>> farm yard?
>
>Yes, that point had occurred to me.

That's nice.

>> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
>> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
>> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.
>
>I think you're over-reacting a little bit.
>
>If you're fed up with doing whatever you have to do when you reply
>to my posts, obviously you have the option of not replying to them.

I do, and I choose to do so because I believe it's right to do so.

>I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from
>doing so outweighs the burden.

Pah! That's you, Whoopie - always ready to solve a deontological
problem by using a utilitarian calculation. It's what you are. You'll
never change it, and you *never did* hide it very well.

>If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.

I'll bet anything that your handwriting is a scrawl and your notes a
chaotic litter, too.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/12/2013 11:29 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:40:53 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 29, 2012 10:56:42 PM UTC+2, lighting tech at Mega Amusement wrote:
> []
>>>>> What a stupid fuckwit Fuckwit is!
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>>> Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>>> more productive to do with your time?
>>>
>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>> farm yard?
>>
>> That's an interesting and witty way of putting it. And of course,
>> that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.
>
> I don't think he'll ever convince me it belongs inside while he holds
> the way open for another 14 or so years here. It's a tragedy, really,
> that he's wasted all these years believing he's developed a clever
> device to trap vegetarians with, when all the while he's never
> caught a single one because of the gaping flaw built into it. 14 years
> baiting it and never a single bite!

It was a singularly flimsy and poorly built trap. Going back to when I
first got here, just a few months after Fuckwit, I never saw a single
"ara" do anything but laugh at it.

[Rupert]

Okay, so this is interesting. Basically, you believe that you have some sort of moral obligation to reply to my posts. Is that correct?

[Rupert]

Okay, well you get benefits from flossing your teeth, don't you. It prevents gum disease. Are you able to elaborate on the benefits that you get from constantly making posts about David Harrison?

[George Plimpton]

I do get a benefit from whacking on Fuckwit David Harrison. It may not
seem very morally admirable, or perhaps not admirable at all, to you,
but I do derive some satisfaction from it. In particular, I really like
reminding him that he's wrong, and that he has been completely wrong on
his central point for more than 14 years.

[Derek]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:03:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert

<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:37:13 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[]

>>
>> >If you're fed up with doing whatever you have to do when you reply
>> >to my posts, obviously you have the option of not replying to them.
>>
>> I do, and I choose to do so because I believe it's right to do so.
>>
>> >I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from
>> >doing so outweighs the burden.
>>
>> Pah! That's you, Whoopie - always ready to solve a deontological
>> problem by using a utilitarian calculation. It's what you are. You'll
>> never change it, and you *never did* hide it very well.
>
>Okay, so this is interesting.

Yes, it is, so why deny that you're a utilitarian?

>Basically, you believe that you have
>some sort of moral obligation to reply to my posts. Is that correct?

No, the sense I'm using here is one of permission, not obligation.
Like I said, "I do, and I choose to do so because I believe it's right
to do so."

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:32:03 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>
>> >Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>
>> >more productive to do with your time?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>
>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>
>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>
>> farm yard?
>>
>
>Yes, that point had occurred to me.

You said:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

so how do you want people to think you could have thought that TOO???
. . .

>I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from doing so outweighs the burden. If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.

That's the same as whether they are of positive or negative value to him,
just as life can be of positive or negative value. You can only comprehend it
being of negative value afawk, though you also claim that you're unable to
comprehend any distinction between the two. Well, you claimed that you could
comprehend:

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert

then later that you could not:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

and now you're pretending that you can again. LOL.... so how often does your
entire pov change for you, and why does it change???

Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
to complain about them existing now and in the future.

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:40:53 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>> farm yard?

. . .

>that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.

It's where YOU place it Goo, and you can't say how you want people to think
you disagree with yourself about ANY of your following quotes:

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

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

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

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo

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

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:48:55 PM UTC+1, Goo wondered:

>> On 2/12/2013 7:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>
>> > It certainly seems like an obsession to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> In what way?
>
>Well, you've been constantly making posts about David Harrison over a period of a number of years, endlessly going on about how stupid he is and what the shortcomings are in his arguments

Goo has never been able to say what exactly he thinks is preventing his life
from being a benefit to him. Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
benefitting now. Can you help the Goober figure out what he wants us to think is
preventing him from benefitting from his life, and then help him try to explain
it since he can't do it for himself and his boys haven't been able to help him
with it either?

Also, a while ago I pointed out that Goo has never been able to say what his
opposition to elimination is, though he amusingly tries to pretend he is an
opponent. Can you provide any example of Goo's supposed opposition to
elimination, or help Goo present it for himself?

One other thing Goo seems incompetent and clueless about is how we should
try to consider anti-consideration for the animals' lives to be superior to
taking them into consideration. Even though you can't comprehend any distinction
between lives of positive and negative value maybe you can help the Goober try
to explain how it could be superior to refuse considering them regardless of the
value they have to the animals, rather than taking the value they have to the
animals into consideration. Please try. Go:

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:24:28 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 2/12/2013 10:06 AM, Rupert wrote:

>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:05:18 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2013 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:33:49 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think if it as comparable to a good personal hygiene habit like
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> flossing my teeth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> That's very irrational.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> If you can't see it, it is unlikely that anything I say will be helpful.
>>
>
>Give it your best effort, and I'll do my best to try to follow along.

Your brother would never say it because he's in favor of what you're doing
but you lying about my beliefs and what I encourage people to believe is a
contaminant, it's a deliberate contaminant:

"as needed" - Goo

and we all know it.

BTW Goo, you never did tell us how you think it could benefit you if you can
get people to think I believe in multiple lives. Since you make a point of lying
that I do Goob, why can't you at least try to explain what you think you could
gain if you ever get anyone to believe you???

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:

>Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>farm yard?

He told you it did which is a lie unless he was lying when he said he
doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive value and
lives of negative value means anything. So which do you think he was lying
about, and why do you think he lied about it?

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:

> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>

Your conviction is self-serving. While that may have been true at one
time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
seem to be thinking of. Reform is badly needed.

In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
diet takes precedence for me.

[Dutch]

The problem is that you base all your arguments on it but you have never
defined it. You have this "conviction" that most farm animals have good
lives but you never make an attempt to support that notion or show why
the opposite view is not true.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/12/2013 2:09 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - idiot cracker, lied:

> On 2/12/2013 10:24 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 10:06 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:05:18 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2013 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:33:49 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I think if it as comparable to a good personal hygiene habit like
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> flossing my teeth.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's very irrational.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>> If you can't see it, it is unlikely that anything I say will be helpful.
>>>
>>
>> Give it your best effort, and I'll do my best to try to follow along.
>
> Your brother

No.

> would never say it because he's in favor of what you're doing
> but you lying about my beliefs

I have not lied about your belief. You believe that any potential
"future farm animals" that instead never exist suffer a "loss". Proved.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/12/2013 2:05 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - a lying
dog-fighting cracker, lied:

> On 2/12/2013 8:40 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:

>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>> farm yard?
>>

>> That's an interesting and witty way of putting it. And of course,

>> that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
>>> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
>>> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.
>>
>> It's a measure of his arrogance. That sort of arrogance frequently is a
>> byproduct of a privileged upbringing.
>

> It's where YOU place it

No, *Goo*. I believe, and have always clearly stated, that it is
possible to provide decent animal welfare to livestock animals. By
definition, that's in the farm yard. You lied.

> ANY of your following quotes:

Not quotes.

[Rupert]

If you don't believe that it's morally obligatory to reply to my posts, and you don't believe that the benefit of doing so outweighs the burden, then it's kind of weird that you would bother to reply.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:04:58 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:32:03 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >>
>
> >> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>
> >>
>
> >> >Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>
> >>
>
> >> >more productive to do with your time?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>
> >>
>
> >> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>
> >>
>
> >> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>
> >>
>
> >> farm yard?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Yes, that point had occurred to me.
>
>
>
> You said:
>
>
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
>
>
> so how do you want people to think you could have thought that TOO???
>
> . . .
>

I don't believe that you've given a well-defined sense to the distinction between a life of positive value and a life of negative value. Derek's point, if I understand him aright, was that it would be possible for a vegetarian to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value. As I say, this point occurred to me.

> >I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from doing so outweighs the burden. If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.
>
>
>
> That's the same as whether they are of positive or negative value to him,
>
> just as life can be of positive or negative value.

But if Derek didn't have his life, then he wouldn't exist at all, so you can't do a meaningful comparison between his level of well-being in the situation where he does exist and the situation where he doesn't exist.

> You can only comprehend it
>
> being of negative value afawk, though you also claim that you're unable to
>
> comprehend any distinction between the two.

It is not a failure of comprehension on my part. It is a failure on your part to explain what you mean.

> Well, you claimed that you could
>
> comprehend:
>
>
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>
> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>
> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>

Yes, on that occasion I was appealling to the idea of an outcome being better in the impartial-reason-implying sense. You could use that as a basis for giving the distinction between "life of positive value" and "life of negative value" some meaning. Is that what you want to do? I thought that on another occasion you said that that wasn't what you had in mind.

>
>
> then later that you could not:
>
>
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>

If you want to define the difference between a "life of positive value" and a "life of negative value" as being "a life is of a positive value if the outcome is better, in the impartial-reason-implying sense, for that life having been lived, compared with the possible world in which the life is not lived", then you are welcome to do so. If you made that move, then I would accept that you had given the distinction a meaningful definition. But, as I recall, you have said that that isn't what you mean. I could be mistaken.

>
>
> and now you're pretending that you can again. LOL.... so how often does your
>
> entire pov change for you, and why does it change???
>

There's been no change.

>
>
> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>
> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>
> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>
> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>
> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>
> to complain about them existing now and in the future.

You appear to be making a claim that these animals all derive a benefit from the fact that they exist at all. You appear not to understand the objections that have frequently been presented to this idea.

[Rupert]

There are two claims here:

(1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.
(2) Given that he has failed to specify what he means by it, it is open for a vegetarian debating with him to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value.

These two claims are entirely consistent. No lying.

[Rupert]

It may be that you get a benefit from it, but it's still a little bit silly to compare it to a good personal hygiene habit like flossing your teeth.

I mean, you can imagine a man who gets a benefit from going to the strip club and paying women to pretend they like him. It's probably fair to say that he gets a benefit from the activity, but it's still worth looking critically at why he finds the activity pleasurable. The analogy isn't perfect here, but there are some points of similarity. For example, it may be that you imagine that deep down Harrison knows that you are his intellectual superior and that you are exposing the shortcomings in his arguments. I would say that that's probably an illusion, Harrison probably has no ideas to that effect at all. And you will probably never succeed in communicating with him effectively about what you see as the shortcomings in his arguments. And pretty much every other observer will think that you're just being silly and wasting your time. So it might be worth your while to look critically at why exactly you feel you derive a benefit from the activity. Because to the impartial onlooker the activity seems a bit futile.

Of course, you can still say to yourself that you have once again done a good job of exposing the shortcomings in Harrison's arguments (by once again saying pretty much the same thing as you have been saying for the last ten years or whatever it is). That may be enough for you, the fact that you can take satisfaction in this achievement. I mean, I'm not going to knock it if you're thinking clearly about the situation. If you get a benefit from it, then hey, go for it.

[Rupert]

Because pretty much everyone thinks like that, people will continue to purchase meat without worrying too much about how it was produced, and the suffering caused by modern factory-farming will continue (until we develop in vitro meat, maybe, or until we are forced to move to a more sustainable use of land as the world's population increases).

[George Plimpton]

On 2/12/2013 9:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:53:30 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 12:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>> Give it your best effort, and I'll do my best to try to follow along.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Okay, well you get benefits from flossing your teeth, don't you. It prevents gum disease. Are you able to elaborate on the benefits that you get from constantly making posts about David Harrison?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I do get a benefit from whacking on Fuckwit David Harrison. It may not
>>
>> seem very morally admirable, or perhaps not admirable at all, to you,
>>
>> but I do derive some satisfaction from it. In particular, I really like
>>
>> reminding him that he's wrong, and that he has been completely wrong on
>>
>> his central point for more than 14 years.
>
> It may be that you get a benefit from it, but it's still a little bit silly to compare it to a good personal hygiene habit like flossing your teeth.

I disagree. Both are good for me.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:51:06 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 9:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
> > It may be that you get a benefit from it, but it's still a little bit silly to compare it to a good personal hygiene habit like flossing your teeth.
>
>
>
> I disagree. Both are good for me.
>

If you stopped flossing your teeth, you would be running a risk of developing a problem which might cause you to suffer. If you stopped making posts about David Harrison, then I hope you wouldn't be running the risk of experiencing any significant suffering. If you would be, that sounds like a bit of a worry.

It is a little bit mysterious to an onlooker such as myself exactly why you find the activity so pleasurable.

[Dutch]

I understand why it would be mysterious to a disinterested onlooker, but
I understand it. Harrison is an especially despicable little worm so
kicking the crap out of him, rhetorically speaking, although not very
challenging, is satisfying in a peculiar way. It's a little like popping
a pimple.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:29:08 AM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

> Rupert wrote:
>
>
> I understand why it would be mysterious to a disinterested onlooker, but
>
> I understand it. Harrison is an especially despicable little worm so
>
> kicking the crap out of him, rhetorically speaking, although not very
>
> challenging, is satisfying in a peculiar way. It's a little like popping
>
> a pimple.

Hmmm. Well, to each their own, I guess. I mean, I engage in conversation with Harrison too so I suppose I can't talk. But I like to think that when I am talking to him I am making the attempt, however futile, to try to get him to understand the world better, as opposed to just pointing out his shortcomings for the sake of it. But I suppose it is a harmless enough habit either way.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:07:24 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>

>
> Goo has never been able to say what exactly he thinks is preventing his life
>
> from being a benefit to him.

I'll try to go through it with you one more time.

Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds, one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has, and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence. He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.

> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>
> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>
> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>
> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>
> benefitting now.

The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state". You could entertain the idea that perhaps each organism that is capable of having conscious experiences has a "soul" attached to it that was in existence before the organism in question was conceived. Ball doesn't take that possibility seriously, either.

> Can you help the Goober figure out what he wants us to think is
>
> preventing him from benefitting from his life, and then help him try to explain
>
> it since he can't do it for himself and his boys haven't been able to help him
>
> with it either?
>

I've given you the argument that he would make, as I understand it. Let me know what you think.

>
>
> Also, a while ago I pointed out that Goo has never been able to say what his
>
> opposition to elimination is, though he amusingly tries to pretend he is an
>
> opponent.

It is completely obvious that Ball is opposed to animal rights. Failure to realize this simple fact is evidence of quite extraordinary stupidity.

> Can you provide any example of Goo's supposed opposition to
>
> elimination, or help Goo present it for himself?
>

He's produced an enormous quantity of writing which is in the Google Archives, which consists almost entirely of things that he has said in opposition to animal rights. He makes the assertion that nonhuman animals do not have any rights, and that vegans are hypocritical because they are failing to live up to their stated moral principles. He's vaguely hinted at an account of moral discourse as being in some way a product of natural selection which he seems to think would support his view that ethics ought to be human-centred. We've had a debate in the past about the idea of "equal consideration", in which he basically insisted that I was wrong to claim that the denier of equal consideration had the burden of proof. He's obviously not in favour of the abolition of animal use, and he's not a vegan, and he says quite a lot of critical things about people who are in favour of such goals.

It's perfectly ridiculous to pretend that Ball is somehow a supporter of animal rights. It's very difficult to understand the apparent fact that you are able to take such nonsense seriously.

>
>
> One other thing Goo seems incompetent and clueless about is how we should
>
> try to consider anti-consideration for the animals' lives to be superior to
>
> taking them into consideration. Even though you can't comprehend any distinction
>
> between lives of positive and negative value maybe you can help the Goober try
>
> to explain how it could be superior to refuse considering them regardless of the
>
> value they have to the animals, rather than taking the value they have to the
>
> animals into consideration. Please try. Go:

Jonathan Ball does not believe that there is any moral reason to bring an organism into existence, even if there is good reason to think that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that notion). He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.

What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/12/2013 10:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:51:06 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 9:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It may be that you get a benefit from it, but it's still a little bit silly to compare it to a good personal hygiene habit like flossing your teeth.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. Both are good for me.
>>
>
> If you stopped flossing your teeth, you would be running a risk of developing a problem which might cause you to suffer.

If I stopped beating up Fuckwit David Harrison, I would probably suffer
some boredom; I'd also suffer from knowing I left a task unfinished.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 2:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:07:24 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Goo has never been able to say what exactly he thinks is preventing his life
>>
>> from being a benefit to him.
>
> I'll try to go through it with you one more time.
>
> Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds, one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has, and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence. He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.

That gets almost all of it. I would go a small step farther and say
that even the *ongoing* experience of life, or existence, is not a
benefit to any entity *compared with* never existing.

>
>
>> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>>
>> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>>
>> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>>
>> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>>
>> benefitting now.
>
> The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state". You could entertain the idea that perhaps each organism that is capable of having conscious experiences has a "soul" attached to it that was in existence before the organism in question was conceived. Ball doesn't take that possibility seriously, either.

Correct. Also, even though I don't believe in souls, I have made
allowance for the fact that I could be wrong, with no loss of certainty
in the conclusion about existence not being a "benefit." Even if souls
"pre-exist", we have no knowledge of their welfare, or even if they have
a welfare, so we still cannot make a comparison.

My knowledge that existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
benefit does not depend in any way on any aspect of or belief in
"pre-existence." Fuckwit knows it, too. As usual, he's trying a
typical Fuckwittian equivocation. He's absolutely equivocating on the
word. See if you can figure out how on your own. I'll help you if you
get stuck. I'd bet good money that Derek has figured it out.

>
>> Can you help the Goober figure out what he wants us to think is
>>
>> preventing him from benefitting from his life, and then help him try to explain
>>
>> it since he can't do it for himself and his boys haven't been able to help him
>>
>> with it either?
>>
>
> I've given you the argument that he would make, as I understand it. Let me know what you think.
>
>>
>>
>> Also, a while ago I pointed out that Goo has never been able to say what his
>>
>> opposition to elimination is, though he amusingly tries to pretend he is an
>>
>> opponent.
>
> It is completely obvious that Ball is opposed to animal rights. Failure to realize this simple fact is evidence of quite extraordinary stupidity.

My opposition to animal rights, *and* to the elimination of livestock,
is not in serious question.

>
>> Can you provide any example of Goo's supposed opposition to
>>
>> elimination, or help Goo present it for himself?
>>
>
> He's produced an enormous quantity of writing which is in the Google Archives, which consists almost entirely of things that he has said in opposition to animal rights. He makes the assertion that nonhuman animals do not have any rights, and that vegans are hypocritical because they are failing to live up to their stated moral principles. He's vaguely hinted at an account of moral discourse as being in some way a product of natural selection which he seems to think would support his view that ethics ought to be human-centred. We've had a debate in the past about the idea of "equal consideration", in which he basically insisted that I was wrong to claim that the denier of equal consideration had the burden of proof. He's obviously not in favour of the abolition of animal use, and he's not a vegan, and he says quite a lot of critical things about people who are in favour of such goals.
>
> It's perfectly ridiculous to pretend that Ball is somehow a supporter of animal rights. It's very difficult to understand the apparent fact that you are able to take such nonsense seriously.

It's essentially the evidence that Fuckwit is just trolling.

>
>>
>>
>> One other thing Goo seems incompetent and clueless about is how we should
>>
>> try to consider anti-consideration for the animals' lives

No such thing.

>> to be superior to taking them into consideration.

Nothing to consider. There is no inherent moral value to a livestock
animal coming into existence, so there's nothing to consider.

>> Even though you can't comprehend any distinction
>>
>> between lives of positive and negative value maybe you can help the Goober try
>>
>> to explain how it could be superior to refuse considering them regardless of the
>>
>> value they have to the animals, rather than taking the value they have to the
>>
>> animals into consideration. Please try. Go:
>
> Jonathan Ball does not believe that there is any moral reason to bring an organism into existence, even if there is good reason to think that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that notion).

Exactly right. The *ONLY* reason to want livestock animals to exist is
if one wants to consume products from them. The fact they "get to
experience life" is meaningless - not deserving of any moral
consideration at all. This is obviously true.

> He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.

Exactly so.

>
> What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe?

He will lie and say no, but of course we know it *IS* exactly what he
believes. It has to be.

> I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.

If he responds at all, it will be a pack of lies.

[Rupert]

It's a bit sad to hear that your life is so empty that you would feel bored if you stopped making your posts about David Harrison. This idea of "leaving the task unfinished" is a bit weird. What would it take for the task to be finished? Am I not right in thinking that it will never be finished? All you are doing is saying the same things over and over again.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:15:21 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 2:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state". You could entertain the idea that perhaps each organism that is capable of having conscious experiences has a "soul" attached to it that was in existence before the organism in question was conceived. Ball doesn't take that possibility seriously, either.
>
>
>
> Correct. Also, even though I don't believe in souls, I have made
>
> allowance for the fact that I could be wrong, with no loss of certainty
>
> in the conclusion about existence not being a "benefit." Even if souls
>
> "pre-exist", we have no knowledge of their welfare, or even if they have
>
> a welfare, so we still cannot make a comparison.
>
>
>
> My knowledge that existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>
> benefit does not depend in any way on any aspect of or belief in
>
> "pre-existence." Fuckwit knows it, too. As usual, he's trying a
>
> typical Fuckwittian equivocation. He's absolutely equivocating on the
>
> word. See if you can figure out how on your own. I'll help you if you
>
> get stuck. I'd bet good money that Derek has figured it out.
>

Perhaps what you have in mind is that Harrison is confusing talk about the "pre-existent state", or perhaps "pre-conception state" would be better, and talk about the possible world in which you never existed.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:41:59 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 10:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:51:06 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/12/2013 9:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> It may be that you get a benefit from it, but it's still a little bit silly to compare it to a good personal hygiene habit like flossing your teeth.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I disagree. Both are good for me.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If you stopped flossing your teeth, you would be running a risk of developing a problem which might cause you to suffer.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I stopped beating up Fuckwit David Harrison, I would probably suffer
>>
>> some boredom; I'd also suffer from knowing I left a task unfinished.
>
> It's a bit sad to hear that your life is so empty that you would feel bored if you stopped making your posts about David Harrison.

It has nothing to do with emptiness of life. It's an activity I do that
I enjoy. I also enjoy playing golf. My life would be worse if I
stopped doing that, too.

> This idea of "leaving the task unfinished" is a bit weird. What would it take for the task to be finished?

For Fuckwit either to say that he has learned that I'm right, or to
admit that he has known it for a long time and that he has only been
trolling for the last 13 years.

> Am I not right in thinking that it will never be finished?

Possibly.

> All you are doing is saying the same things over and over again.
>

Because over and over, Fuckwit is sticking with his stupid empty case.

[George Plimpton]

I'll wait a bit longer to see if Derek has something to add about
Fuckwit's equivocation.

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:15:56 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>
>
>Your conviction is self-serving.

It wouldn't matter if it was it would still be true none the less. Since I
don't eat sheep and very little turkey but can appreciate their lives as well as
broilers even so, you're meaningless claim is also dishonest.

>While that may have been true at one
>time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>seem to be thinking of.

I'm talking about modern methods.

>Reform is badly needed.
>
>In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>diet takes precedence for me.

IF you really do eat meat your refusal to consider the lives of the animals
you consume is on as low a level as you could get from my pov, since I don't see
how you could go any lower.

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:04:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:15:56 PM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>
>> > broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>
>> > cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>
>> > positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>
>> > experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>
>> > to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Your conviction is self-serving. While that may have been true at one
>>
>> time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>>
>> difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>>
>> is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>>
>> seem to be thinking of. Reform is badly needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>>
>> respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>>
>> and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>>
>> diet takes precedence for me.
>
>Because pretty much everyone thinks like that, people will continue to purchase meat without worrying too much about how it was produced,

Because people made veg*n products popular--often containing egg and egg
whites almost certainly obtained from caged hens imo!--while attacking meat
instead of encouraging animal friendly animal products.

>and the suffering caused by modern factory-farming will continue (until we develop in vitro meat, maybe,

Since I believe many livestock have lives of positive value I can consider
it better for them to live conscious lives rather than be kept in a comatose
condition or even just growing meat in vats or something. Eliminationists can't,
but I can.

>or until we are forced to move to a more sustainable use of land as the world's population increases).

I feel rotational grazing could be a big help.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:23:03 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:04:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:15:56 PM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> dh@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>
> >>
>
> >> > broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>
> >>
>
> >> > cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> > positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>
> >>
>
> >> > experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>
> >>
>
> >> > to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Your conviction is self-serving. While that may have been true at one
>
> >>
>
> >> time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>
> >>
>
> >> difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>
> >>
>
> >> is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>
> >>
>
> >> seem to be thinking of. Reform is badly needed.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>
> >>
>
> >> respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>
> >>
>
> >> and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>
> >>
>
> >> diet takes precedence for me.
>
> >
>
> >Because pretty much everyone thinks like that, people will continue to purchase meat without worrying too much about how it was produced,
>
>
>
> Because people made veg*n products popular--often containing egg and egg
>
> whites almost certainly obtained from caged hens imo!--while attacking meat
>
> instead of encouraging animal friendly animal products.
>

If it contains eggs or egg whites, then it's not vegan.

What's your idea of what are the most "animal friendly" products?

>
>
> >and the suffering caused by modern factory-farming will continue (until we develop in vitro meat, maybe,
>
>
>
> Since I believe many livestock have lives of positive value I can consider
>
> it better for them to live conscious lives rather than be kept in a comatose
>
> condition or even just growing meat in vats or something. Eliminationists can't,
>
> but I can.
>
>

Maybe one day you will get around to explaining what exactly you mean by "lives of positive value".

>
> >or until we are forced to move to a more sustainable use of land as the world's population increases).
>
>
>
> I feel rotational grazing could be a big help.

Could be.

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:42:23 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:04:58 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:32:03 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >more productive to do with your time?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> farm yard?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Yes, that point had occurred to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> You said:
>>
>>
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>>
>>
>> so how do you want people to think you could have thought that TOO???
>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>I don't believe that you've given a well-defined sense to the distinction between a life of positive value and a life of negative value.

As I've pointed out in the past if you don't think there's a distinction
it's because YOU can't comprehend one, NOT because I haven't provided you with a
definition that you like. It's very lame of you to even try to pretend it's my
fault when it's entirely your own, unless you're lying instead which I suspect
is the case.

>Derek's point, if I understand him aright, was that it would be possible for a vegetarian to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value. As I say, this point occurred to me.

Then you would be acknowledging the distinction wherever you draw the line.

>> >I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from doing so outweighs the burden. If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the same as whether they are of positive or negative value to him,
>>
>> just as life can be of positive or negative value.
>
>But if Derek didn't have his life, then he wouldn't exist at all, so you can't do a meaningful comparison between his level of well-being in the situation where he does exist and the situation where he doesn't exist.

We're still discussing the distinction between lives of positive and
negative value, not life and no life.

>> You can only comprehend it
>>
>> being of negative value afawk, though you also claim that you're unable to
>>
>> comprehend any distinction between the two.
>
>It is not a failure of comprehension on my part. It is a failure on your part to explain what you mean.
>
>> Well, you claimed that you could
>>
>> comprehend:
>>
>>
>>
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>>
>> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>>
>> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>
>
>Yes, on that occasion I was appealling to the idea of an outcome being better in the impartial-reason-implying sense. You could use that as a basis for giving the distinction between "life of positive value" and "life of negative value" some meaning. Is that what you want to do?

It's what I've been doing all along. Do you think I'm going to stop now?

>I thought that on another occasion you said that that wasn't what you had in mind.

I've said that "good" is not the same as being of positive value since it
can be the latter without being the former. I've also said that some lives
appear to be of positive value for the beings experiencing them REGARDLESS of
anything to do with non-existence.

>> then later that you could not:
>>
>>
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>
>If you want to define the difference between a "life of positive value" and a "life of negative value" as being "a life is of a positive value if the outcome is better, in the impartial-reason-implying sense, for that life having been lived, compared with the possible world in which the life is not lived", then you are welcome to do so. If you made that move, then I would accept that you had given the distinction a meaningful definition. But, as I recall, you have said that that isn't what you mean. I could be mistaken.

When you say better you are comparing life with non-existence, and I may
have said that I try to avoid doing that.

>> and now you're pretending that you can again. LOL.... so how often does your
>>
>> entire pov change for you, and why does it change???
>>
>
>There's been no change.
>
>>
>>
>> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>
>> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>
>> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>
>> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>
>> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>
>> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>
>You appear to be making a claim that these animals all derive a benefit from the fact that they exist at all. You appear not to understand the objections that have frequently been presented to this idea.

Goo has never been able to say what he wants people to think prevents life
from being a benefit. We know it has something to do with pre-existence from the
few attempts he has made to explain, but he can't say WHAT he wants people to
think is preventing him from benefitting now.

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:49:52 -0800, Goo lied:

>On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:05:24 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:40:53 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>>> farm yard?

>>. . .

>>>that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.
>>

>> It's where YOU place it Goo, and you can't say how you want people to think
>>you disagree with yourself about ANY of your following quotes:
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
>>of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in
>>the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>Not quotes.

All quotes and you agree with yourself about every one of them, Goo.

[dh]

The person claiming they suffer so much that their lives are of negative
value to them needs to explain, not me. Try doing it now, and tell us which
specific suffering for which particular animals. Go:

[dh]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:45:13 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>
>> >place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>
>> >value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>
>> >farm yard?
>>
>>
>>
>> He told you it did which is a lie unless he was lying when he said he
>>
>> doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive value and
>>
>> lives of negative value means anything. So which do you think he was lying
>>
>> about, and why do you think he lied about it?
>
>There are two claims here:
>
>(1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.

It's not up to me to explain it to you any more than it's up to me to
explain anything else in a way you can comprehend. YOU don't believe the
distinction between the two entirely different types of situation means
anything, regardless of anything at all to do with me.

>(2) Given that he has failed to specify what he means by it, it is open for a vegetarian debating with him to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value.

That would contradict your belief that there is no meaning, since that shows
you believe it does have meaning.

[dh]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:07:24 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Goo has never been able to say what exactly he thinks is preventing his life
>>
>> from being a benefit to him.
>
>I'll try to go through it with you one more time.
>
>Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds,

We're not.

>one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has,

That's the one Goo and I are considering. What do you think is preventing
him from benefitting?

>and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence.

WHAT do you think is preventing him and HOW do you think whatever it is is
doing so?

>He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.
>
>
>> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>>
>> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>>
>> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>>
>> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>>
>> benefitting now.
>
>The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state".

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - 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

He doesn't want people to appreciate when animals DO have good lives, and
that supports elimination over AW.

>He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.
>
>What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.

Goo's lying to you about that. To me it's no worse than the fact that
dinosaurs are extinct, that rocks are not alive, and that we don't raise
porcupines for food. I've given all those examplse to Goo in the past, but he
lies about it anyway because that's what he does.

[Rupert]

You're the one who wants to try to argue that it's a meaningful distinction. So it's your job to give a satisfactory definition of the distinction. In my view, you have not done so to date.

> It's very lame of you to even try to pretend it's my
>
> fault when it's entirely your own,

Why would it be my fault? It's your job to define the distinction. Why is it my fault if you can't do it?

> unless you're lying instead which I suspect
>
> is the case.
>
>
>
> >Derek's point, if I understand him aright, was that it would be possible for a vegetarian to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value. As I say, this point occurred to me.
>
>
>
> Then you would be acknowledging the distinction wherever you draw the line.
>

If you chose to make that argument, then yes, you would be accepting that there is some distinction.

>
>
> >> >I wouldn't bother replying to them unless the benefit you get from doing so outweighs the burden. If it does, then I don't see that you have anything to complain about.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's the same as whether they are of positive or negative value to him,
>
> >>
>
> >> just as life can be of positive or negative value.
>
> >
>
> >But if Derek didn't have his life, then he wouldn't exist at all, so you can't do a meaningful comparison between his level of well-being in the situation where he does exist and the situation where he doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> We're still discussing the distinction between lives of positive and
>
> negative value, not life and no life.
>

And what would that distinction be, pray tell?

>
>
> >> You can only comprehend it
>
> >>
>
> >> being of negative value afawk, though you also claim that you're unable to
>
> >>
>
> >> comprehend any distinction between the two.
>
> >
>
> >It is not a failure of comprehension on my part. It is a failure on your part to explain what you mean.
>
> >
>
> >> Well, you claimed that you could
>
> >>
>
> >> comprehend:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
>
> >>
>
> >> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
>
> >>
>
> >> than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Yes, on that occasion I was appealling to the idea of an outcome being better in the impartial-reason-implying sense. You could use that as a basis for giving the distinction between "life of positive value" and "life of negative value" some meaning. Is that what you want to do?
>
>
>
> It's what I've been doing all along. Do you think I'm going to stop now?
>

Okay. Sorry, I misunderstood. So you think that a life is of positive value if it makes the outcome better in the impartial-reason-implying sense if that life is lived compared with an alternative possible world in which that life is not lived but in all other respects things are equal. Is that correct?

>
>
> >I thought that on another occasion you said that that wasn't what you had in mind.
>
>
>
> I've said that "good" is not the same as being of positive value since it
>
> can be the latter without being the former. I've also said that some lives
>
> appear to be of positive value for the beings experiencing them REGARDLESS of
>
> anything to do with non-existence.
>
>
>
> >> then later that you could not:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>
> >>
>
> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >If you want to define the difference between a "life of positive value" and a "life of negative value" as being "a life is of a positive value if the outcome is better, in the impartial-reason-implying sense, for that life having been lived, compared with the possible world in which the life is not lived", then you are welcome to do so. If you made that move, then I would accept that you had given the distinction a meaningful definition. But, as I recall, you have said that that isn't what you mean. I could be mistaken.
>
>
>
> When you say better you are comparing life with non-existence, and I may
>
> have said that I try to avoid doing that.
>

How can you avoid doing that if you want to make a judgement about whether a life has "positive value" or "negative value"? Can you explain?

>
>
> >> and now you're pretending that you can again. LOL.... so how often does your
>
> >>
>
> >> entire pov change for you, and why does it change???
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >There's been no change.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>
> >>
>
> >> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>
> >>
>
> >> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>
> >>
>
> >> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>
> >>
>
> >> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>
> >
>
> >You appear to be making a claim that these animals all derive a benefit from the fact that they exist at all. You appear not to understand the objections that have frequently been presented to this idea.
>
>
>
> Goo has never been able to say what he wants people to think prevents life
>
> from being a benefit.

Well, I tried to go through it with you in a different post. Let me know what you think.

> We know it has something to do with pre-existence from the
>
> few attempts he has made to explain, but he can't say WHAT he wants people to
>
> think is preventing him from benefitting now.

No. It's got nothing to do with "pre-existence", whatever that could possibly mean.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker
and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:07:24 PM UTC+1, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:53:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>

>>> George has never been able to say what exactly he thinks is preventing his life

>>>
>>> from being a benefit to him.
>>
>> I'll try to go through it with you one more time.
>>
>> Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds,
>
> We're not.

Yes, *Goo*, I know you're not. What you're doing is equivocating, once
again, this time on the word "pre-existence."

>> one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has,
>

> That's the one George and I are considering. What do you think is preventing
> him from benefitting?

Because coming into existence doesn't improve my welfare, *Goo*. In
fact, *Goo*, /continuing/ to exist doesn't improve my welfare. Existence
is the condition required for me to /have/ a welfare at all, *Goo*, but
it is not an improvement of my welfare.

>> and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence.
>
> WHAT do you think is preventing him

Already explained.

>> He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.
>>
>>
>>> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>>>
>>> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>>>
>>> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>>>
>>> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>>>
>>> benefitting now.
>>
>> The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state".
>
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged."

That's a statement about a hypothetical situation, *Goo*. It's also a
mangled quote - something I wrote but taken out of context. Here's what
I wrote that clearly shows I was speaking only hypothetically, *Goo*:

Either the entity "pre-exists" before it comes into the
existence we know, or it doesn't pre-exist. If it
doesn't, then life is not a benefit, because "benefit"
is defined as something that improves the welfare of an
entity, and prior to the entity existing, it had no
welfare that could be improved. Therefore, existence -
life _per se_ - is not a benefit.

If the entity *does* have some kind of "pre-existence",
we know nothing of the quality of its welfare. When

the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.

Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it.

You lied, *Goo*, and got caught again.

> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
> might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
> "pre-existence" state was"

Not a quote. Here's what was written:

Derek (who knew the answer to the riddle) to Fuckwit:
> Salt's main objection to your argument is that it rests on
> the assumption of some special knowledge of pre-natal
> existence, and that YOU have no reason to believe that
> existence can be bettered by housing it in filthy conditions
> and butchered.

Prof. Plimpton to Derek:
That's half of it; the half one investigates if one believes, as
Fuckwit often appears to believe, that unconceived/unborn farm
animals have some kind of "pre-existence". If one believes they
do, one has no knowledge of that state of pre-existence, and one
cannot rationally consider that ending that state and beginning
life constitutes an improvement. Note that this applies EVEN

WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide:
they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was

for the animals; one simply cannot know.


Fuckwit lied by text-mangling again.

>
>> You could entertain the idea that perhaps each organism that is capable of
>> having conscious experiences has a "soul" attached to it that was in existence
>> before the organism in question was conceived. Ball doesn't take that
>> possibility seriously, either.
>>

>>> what he wants us to think is
>>>
>>> preventing him from benefitting from his life, and then help him try to explain
>>>
>>> it since he can't do it for himself and his boys haven't been able to help him
>>>
>>> with it either?
>>>
>>
>> I've given you the argument that he would make, as I understand it. Let me know what you think.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, a while ago I pointed out that Goo has never been able to say what his
>>>
>>> opposition to elimination is, though he amusingly tries to pretend he is an
>>>
>>> opponent.
>>
>> It is completely obvious that Ball is opposed to animal rights. Failure to realize this simple fact is evidence of quite extraordinary stupidity.
>>
>>> Can you provide any example of Goo's supposed opposition to
>>>
>>> elimination, or help Goo present it for himself?
>>>
>>
>> He's produced an enormous quantity of writing which is in the Google Archives, which consists almost entirely of things that he has said in opposition to animal rights. He makes the assertion that nonhuman animals do not have any rights, and that vegans are hypocritical because they are failing to live up to their stated moral principles. He's vaguely hinted at an account of moral discourse as being in some way a product of natural selection which he seems to think would support his view that ethics ought to be human-centred. We've had a debate in the past about the idea of "equal consideration", in which he basically insisted that I was wrong to claim that the denier of equal consideration had the burden of proof. He's obviously not in favour of the abolition of animal use, and he's not a vegan, and he says quite a lot of critical things about people who are in favour of such goals.
>>
>> It's perfectly ridiculous to pretend that Ball is somehow a supporter of animal rights. It's very difficult to understand the apparent fact that you are able to take such nonsense seriously.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One other thing Goo seems incompetent and clueless about is how we should
>>>
>>> try to consider anti-consideration for the animals' lives to be superior to
>>>
>>> taking them into consideration. Even though you can't comprehend any distinction
>>>
>>> between lives of positive and negative value maybe you can help the Goober try
>>>
>>> to explain how it could be superior to refuse considering them regardless of the
>>>
>>> value they have to the animals, rather than taking the value they have to the
>>>
>>> animals into consideration. Please try. Go:
>>
>> Jonathan Ball does not believe that there is any moral reason to bring an organism into existence, even if there is good reason to think that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that notion).
>
> He doesn't want people to appreciate when animals DO have good lives

No, that's false. What I do is point out - yes! - that the mere
*prospect* of them having "good lives" is not a justification for
causing them to exist. I also point out - oh, yes! - that "vegans"
don't believe there is any prospect of it.

>> He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.
>>
>> What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.
>

> George is lying to you about that.

No, *Goo*, I'm not. That is *exactly* what you believe, *Goo*. It
*necessarily* is what you believe, *Goo* - proved.

> To me it's no worse than the fact that
> dinosaurs are extinct,

No, *Goo*. When you hyperventilate and start shrieking about
"vegans"/"aras" not giving appropriate "consideration" to the prospect
of livestock animals "getting to experience life", you *ARE* making a
moral criticism of them, *Goo*. When you say that livestock animals
existing is "superior to the elimination objective", *Goo*, you are
saying it is *morally* superior, and so necessarily, *Goo*, you are
making a moral criticism of anyone who supports the option that you
consider morally inferior.

You're just far too stupid for this, *Goo*. You lose, every time.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:41 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:45:13 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:13:52 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>>
>>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>>
>>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>>
>>>> farm yard?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He told you it did which is a lie unless he was lying when he said he
>>>
>>> doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive value and
>>>
>>> lives of negative value means anything. So which do you think he was lying
>>>
>>> about, and why do you think he lied about it?
>>
>> There are two claims here:
>>
>> (1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.
>
> It's not up to me to explain it to you any more than

Yes, it is.

>> (2) Given that he has failed to specify what he means by it, it is open for a vegetarian debating with him to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value.
>
> That would contradict your belief that there is no meaning

That's not his belief.


You "outstupided" <chortle> yourself *again*, *Goo*! LOL!!!!!!!

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:28:59 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>>> farm yard?
>>>
>>> He told you it did which is a lie unless he was lying when he said he
>>> doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive value and
>>> lives of negative value means anything. So which do you think he was lying
>>> about, and why do you think he lied about it?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that you base all your arguments on it but you have never
>> defined it. You have this "conviction" that most farm animals have good
>> lives but you never make an attempt to support that notion or show why
>> the opposite view is not true.
>
> The person claiming they suffer so much that their lives are of negative
> value to them needs to explain, not me.

No, that's false, *Goo*. Anyway, many people who believe farm animals
suffer lives that aren't worth living *have* explained exactly why they
believe that.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On 2/12/2013 2:49 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 2:05 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - a lying dog-fighting cracker, lied:

>>
>>> On 2/12/2013 8:40 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2013 7:32 AM, Derek wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, June 29, 2012 10:56:42 PM UTC+2, lighting tech at Mega
>>>>>> Amusement wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/29/2012 12:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks and a tip of the hat to Derek Nash.
>>>>>
>>>>> My pleasure.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm not good at all this--I don't know any rules of
>>>>>>>> debate, or how to present a logical argument, or even
>>>>>>>> what all I don't know how to do. So please excuse my
>>>>>>>> inability to converse properly."
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison 23 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/6mvnyj
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I admit that I'm very weak in the area of presenting
>>>>>>>> my ideas...I have as much 'right' to post my spew as
>>>>>>>> everyone else does."
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison 30 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/5rzbva
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I lack a lot of skills really though. I don't know anything
>>>>>>>> about proper debate, or constructing a convincing
>>>>>>>> argument, or any of the basic things."
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison 25 July 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5qfkco
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I am 41 years old, and skinny. I drink about a 6 pack
>>>>>>>> of beer each night, and probably not nearly enough
>>>>>>>> water--less water than beer."
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison 28 May 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6nlz5t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He also blabbers on endlessly about people being "below" him in some
>>>>>>>> kind of understanding:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you who are below me are in an even worse position thanI am
>>>>>>>> is one point.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/75gxd3z
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's because you're more stupid about this than I am andyou can't
>>>>>>>> get up to my level.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/82alxun
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I guess you're fit to discuss it with other people whohave
>>>>>>>> the same mental limitation, but not with those who don't.
>>>>>>>> [Implication that Fuckwit doesn't have such a "restriction"]
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ct5ujhe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't believe it means anything because you can'tcomprehend
>>>>>>>> how it does mean something and that's a limitation of YOURbrain,
>>>>>>>> not a restriction that I somehow magically placed on the overly
>>>>>>>> challenged little thing.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/bqf2q59
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are many more. Fuckwit continually blabbers - bullshits -
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> possessing some "higher" level of understanding, or of not putting
>>>>>>>> "restrictions" or "limitations" on his thinking that he claims
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>> do. That is, he imagines himself to have superior insight and
>>>>>>>> understanding, when in fact he is literally a mental cripple, due
>>>>>>>> to 1)
>>>>>>>> being of limited intelligence, and 2) undeducated, and 3) having
>>>>>>>> *chose*
>>>>>>>> willfully to be stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a stupid fuckwit Fuckwit is!

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>>>>> Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>>>>> more productive to do with your time?
>>>>>

>>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>>>> farm yard?
>>>>

>>>> That's an interesting and witty way of putting it. And of course,

>>>> that's exactly where so-called ethical vegetarians *do* place it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that your obstinate refusal to use a
>>>>> news client reinforces the idea that you're a childish time-wasting
>>>>> twat? I'm fed up tidying up after you.
>>>>
>>>> It's a measure of his arrogance. That sort of arrogance frequently is a
>>>> byproduct of a privileged upbringing.

>>>
>>> It's where YOU place it
>>

>> No, *Goo*. I believe, and have always clearly stated, that it is
>> possible to provide decent animal welfare to livestock animals. By
>> definition, that's in the farm yard. You lied.

>>
>>> ANY of your following quotes:
>>

>> Not quotes.
>
> All quotes and

Not quotes. It is proved that they're not quotes.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:33 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:42:23 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:04:58 PM UTC+1, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:51:14 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:32:03 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:55:16 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your obsession with David
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Harrison is a bit pointless and maybe you should find something a bit
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> more productive to do with your time?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> farm yard?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, that point had occurred to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>
>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> so how do you want people to think you could have thought that TOO???
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe that you've given a well-defined sense to the distinction between a life of positive value and a life of negative value.
>
> As I've pointed out in the past if you don't think there's a distinction

No, *Goo*. *YOU* haven't given a well-defined distinction. You can't,
of course - every attempt you've made has been empty tautology
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29)

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:23 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:04:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:15:56 PM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:

>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>>
>>>> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>>
>>>> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>>
>>>> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>>
>>>> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>>
>>>> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your conviction is self-serving. While that may have been true at one
>>>
>>> time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>>>
>>> difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>>>
>>> is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>>>
>>> seem to be thinking of. Reform is badly needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>>>
>>> respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>>>
>>> and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>>>
>>> diet takes precedence for me.
>>
>> Because pretty much everyone thinks like that, people will continue to purchase meat without worrying too much about how it was produced,
>

> Because people made veg*n [sic] products popular--often containing egg and egg

> whites almost certainly obtained from caged hens imo!--while attacking meat
> instead of encouraging animal friendly animal products.

"vegan" products do not contain any egg products at all.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker

and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:15:56 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>

>>> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Your conviction is self-serving.
>
> It wouldn't matter if it was it would still be true none the less.

No, it may be your conviction, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Of course, you don't *care* if livestock animals enjoy high welfare.
You've told us:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

[George Plimpton]

*Goo* wrote:

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

If *Goo* doesn't care about animal welfare, he has no valid reason to
demand that anyone else care about it.

[Dutch]

Saying that I am on a low level implies that, say, relative to you, I am
causing some sort of harm. Can you elaborate on that? What harm am I
causing that you are not causing?

[Dutch]

Why do they have that burden and you don't?

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 12:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - who doesn't care
about animal welfare at all, lied:

He considers their welfare, *IF* they exist. He doesn't attach any
value to their "getting to experience life." There's no moral
importance to that at all. The animals don't "get something out of the
'deal'." There's no "deal."

[George Plimpton]

You stupid fuckwit: when Fuckwit writes "veg*n", the asterisk is not a
placeholder for 'a'. He's lazy - all crackers are - and he's trying to
write "vegetarian and/or vegan". He's done it forever. It's just more
of his cracker fuckwittery.

For the record, Fuckwit has never seen a product labeled "vegetarian"
that contains any egg derivatives.

>
> What's your idea of what are the most "animal friendly" products?
>
>>
>>
>>> and the suffering caused by modern factory-farming will continue (until we develop in vitro meat, maybe,
>>
>>
>>
>> Since I believe many livestock have lives of positive value I can consider
>>
>> it better for them to live conscious lives rather than be kept in a comatose
>>
>> condition or even just growing meat in vats or something. Eliminationists can't,
>>
>> but I can.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe one day you will get around to explaining what exactly you mean by "lives of positive value".

You mean, give a *meaningful* explanation. He has given an explanation.
Don't you remember it? It was something to the effect of "not too
much negative value", or something equally bullshit.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:41:26 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:45:13 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>

> >There are two claims here:
>
> >
>
> >(1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.
>
>
>
> It's not up to me to explain it to you any more than it's up to me to
>
> explain anything else in a way you can comprehend. YOU don't believe the
>
> distinction between the two entirely different types of situation means
>
> anything, regardless of anything at all to do with me.
>

Of course it is your job to explain what you mean by the distinction. It plays a central role in your argument. If you can't give any meaningful explanation of what the distinction means, then you don't have an argument worth anything.

>
>
> >(2) Given that he has failed to specify what he means by it, it is open for a vegetarian debating with him to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value.
>
>
>
> That would contradict your belief that there is no meaning, since that shows
>
> you believe it does have meaning.

If I actually made the move of making the claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value, then that would contradict any previous statement that I made about the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value not being a meaningful one.

But I never made this move. I simply agreed with Derek's observation that it is a possible move for a vegetarian to make in response to your argument.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:51:20 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds,
>
>
>
> We're not.
>

It's a thought experiment. The point of the thought experiment is to show you why Ball believes that coming into existence is not a benefit.

>
>
> >one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has,
>
>
>
> That's the one Goo and I are considering. What do you think is preventing
>
> him from benefitting?
>

That is what I am trying to explain in the very post to which you are replying.

>
>
> >and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence.
>
>
>
> WHAT do you think is preventing him and HOW do you think whatever it is is
>
> doing so?
>

Re-read the third last sentence and the second last sentence of the paragraph you just quoted from me.

>
>
> >He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>
> >>
>
> >> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>
> >>
>
> >> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>
> >>
>
> >> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>
> >>
>
> >> benefitting now.
>
> >
>
> >The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state".
>
>
>
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>
> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>
> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>

In this quote, Ball is entertaining for the sake of argument (not because he actually believes it) the possibility that there might be some kind of entity called the soul which exists prior to conception. And he is making the point that we have insufficient information on the basis of which to make a comparison between the level of well-being prior to conception and the level of well-being during the time that the organism is alive after conception.

>
>
> "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
>

Similar remarks apply here.

That's not true. There are simply no good grounds for saying that Ball doesn't want people to appreciate the fact that an animal has a good life (when that happens). He is making the claim that, if you are contemplating whether or not to bring a conscious organism into existence, then the quality of any future experiences it might have if you do bring it into existence is not a relevant consideration. That is a different issue. One can appreciate the fact that some existing conscious organisms have good lives without thinking that the future experiences of "potential conscious organisms" are a relevant consideration to deciding whether or not to bring them into existence.

>
>
> >He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.
>
> >
>
> >What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.
>
>
>
> Goo's lying to you about that. To me it's no worse than the fact that
>
> dinosaurs are extinct, that rocks are not alive, and that we don't raise
>
> porcupines for food. I've given all those examplse to Goo in the past, but he
>
> lies about it anyway because that's what he does.

Okay. But am I not right in thinking that you have made the claim that vegans are being selfish by refusing to financially support industries that bring livestock animals into existence? Is that a claim that you have made? How would you go about justifying that claim, if you think that there's no moral shortcoming involved in refusing to bring a conscious organism into existence when that organism will have on balance a reasonably good life?

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 8:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:41:26 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:45:13 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>> There are two claims here:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> (1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not up to me to explain it to you any more than it's up to me to
>>
>> explain anything else in a way you can comprehend. YOU don't believe the
>>
>> distinction between the two entirely different types of situation means
>>
>> anything, regardless of anything at all to do with me.
>>
>
> Of course it is your job to explain what you mean by the distinction. It plays a central role in your argument. If you can't give any meaningful explanation of what the distinction means, then you don't have an argument worth anything.

LOL!!! Took you long enough.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/13/2013 9:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:51:20 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let's say you're comparing two possible worlds,
>>
>>
>>
>> We're not.
>>
>
> It's a thought experiment. The point of the thought experiment is to show you why Ball believes that coming into existence is not a benefit.

Errr...you didn't happen to note that Fuckwit - that's really how he's
known - never said what he /does/ mean when talking about
"pre-existence", did you? Here's a huge hint for you: he's equivocating.

>
>>
>>
>>> one of them being the actual world, in which Jonathan Ball exists and has the life that he in fact has containing whatever sources of satisfaction and frustration that it has,
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the one Goo and I are considering. What do you think is preventing
>>
>> him from benefitting?
>>
>
> That is what I am trying to explain in the very post to which you are replying.
>
>>
>>
>>> and another possible world in which Jonathan Ball was never conceived and does not exist, perhaps because his parents refrained from having sex at the time when he would otherwise have been conceived. You cannot meaningfully say that Jonathan Ball is better off in the first world than the second world. Because he does not exist in the second world. So Jonathan Ball has not benefitted from the fact that he came into existence.
>>
>>
>>
>> WHAT do you think is preventing him and HOW do you think whatever it is is
>>
>> doing so?
>>
>
> Re-read the third last sentence and the second last sentence of the paragraph you just quoted from me.
>
>>
>>
>>> He benefits from various things about his life which make things better for him than they otherwise would be. But not from the event of coming into existence. You can only meaningfully speak of a benefit when you can do a meaningful comparison of the level of well-being of an individual in two different possible worlds.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Goo's let us know he thinks it has something to do
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> with his pre-existence on the rare and stupid occassions when he's tried to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> support his pathetic claim, but Goob has NEVER been able to say exactly WHAT
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> about his pre-existence he wants people to believe is preventing him from
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> benefitting now.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state".
>>
>>
>>
>> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>
>> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>
>> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>
>
> In this quote, Ball is entertaining for the sake of argument (not because he actually believes it) the possibility that there might be some kind of entity called the soul which exists prior to conception.

Exactly. And Fuckwit *knows* that, too. Fuckwit *knows* that I'm not
describing my own beliefs, but rather am talking about a hypothetical
situation that might describe someone's beliefs, but not mine.

So, Fuckwit is lying (by omission of context) in trying to ascribe this
belief to me. He's done it repeatedly - he has posted the same mangled
quote dozens of times. It's a lie, and *you* know it's a lie. So, two
questions:

1. Why do you suppose Fuckwit keeps attempting the same lie?
2. Why don't you call him a liar, when *you know* he is lying?

> And he is making the point that we have insufficient information on the basis of which to make a comparison between the level of well-being prior to conception and the level of well-being during the time that the organism is alive after conception.
>
>>
>>
>> "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
>>
>
> Similar remarks apply here.

Yes, they sure do: it's not a quote. It is so incomplete as to be a
lie. Fuckwit knows it's a lie, too.

No, that's not true. I think an ethical meat eater might well choose to
stop eating meat if he had reason to think that all meat animals had
horrible lives. He'd /like/ to eat meat, but only if he is convinced
the animals bred to produce the meat have lives that meet some minimum
welfare standards he subjectively considers. If you think about it,
it's the exact opposite of Fuckwit's stated position:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

An ethical meat eater might say, "I am not an extremist about it, *but*

if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would

*no longer* eat meat."

What I'm saying has no connection whatever to animal welfare. What I'm
saying is that *irrespective* of the welfare of an animal, the fact that
it "gets to experience life" has no moral significance, and deserves no
"consideration." If it *does* exist, i.e. it does "get to experience
life", then its *welfare* deserves much consideration; but the choice
between "getting" or "not getting to experience life" deserves no
consideration whatever.

> That is a different issue. One can appreciate the fact that some existing conscious organisms have good lives without thinking that the future experiences of "potential conscious organisms" are a relevant consideration to deciding whether or not to bring them into existence.
>
>>
>>
>>> He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Goo's lying to you about that. To me it's no worse than the fact that
>>
>> dinosaurs are extinct, that rocks are not alive, and that we don't raise
>>
>> porcupines for food. I've given all those examplse to Goo in the past, but he
>>
>> lies about it anyway because that's what he does.
>
> Okay.

No, *not* okay. I'm not lying. *Goo* is lying.

> But am I not right in thinking that you have made the claim that vegans are being selfish by refusing to financially support industries that bring livestock animals into existence?

He has talked about "vegans" being "selfish" before, but that is not the
gist of his lousy argument. His lousy argument is that even if the
"vegans" are merely misguided, rather than selfish, they are committing
a heinous moral crime simply by wanting livestock animals to cease to
exist - to become extinct. The moral crime is in not "appreciating"
what the animals supposedly - but fictitiously - "get out of the deal."
The alleged selfishness merely compounds the crime, in Fuckwit's
crackpot cracker eyes, but is not the fundamental crime itself.

> Is that a claim that you have made?

It is, but it's not his principal claim.

[Rupert]

I do not claim any insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour. I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very well be deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure, because I really have no way of knowing what limits there are to his stupidity. Also, even if I knew for sure that he was deliberately lying, pointing out the fact still wouldn't achieve very much.

Okay. Fine. Yes, I should have been a bit more careful about the way I phrased that.

>
>
> An ethical meat eater might say, "I am not an extremist about it, *but*
>
> if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would
>
> *no longer* eat meat."
>

What's your take on what the lives of most farm animals are like?

>
>
> What I'm saying has no connection whatever to animal welfare. What I'm
>
> saying is that *irrespective* of the welfare of an animal, the fact that
>
> it "gets to experience life" has no moral significance, and deserves no
>
> "consideration." If it *does* exist, i.e. it does "get to experience
>
> life", then its *welfare* deserves much consideration; but the choice
>
> between "getting" or "not getting to experience life" deserves no
>
> consideration whatever.
>

Okay.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > That is a different issue. One can appreciate the fact that some existing conscious organisms have good lives without thinking that the future experiences of "potential conscious organisms" are a relevant consideration to deciding whether or not to bring them into existence.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> He believes that if you refrain from bringing the organism into existence, that is not in any way a moral shortcoming.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> What, I wonder, do you think? Do you think that if I have an opportunity to bring one more conscious organism into existence, and that there is good reason to suppose that that organism will have on balance a good life (however exactly you might define that), and that there will be no counterbalancing bad effects, then my failing to do so is some kind of moral shortcoming? Is that what you believe? I am interested in getting clear in exactly what your take on this is.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Goo's lying to you about that. To me it's no worse than the fact that
>
> >>
>
> >> dinosaurs are extinct, that rocks are not alive, and that we don't raise
>
> >>
>
> >> porcupines for food. I've given all those examplse to Goo in the past, but he
>
> >>
>
> >> lies about it anyway because that's what he does.
>
> >
>
> > Okay.
>
>
>
> No, *not* okay. I'm not lying. *Goo* is lying.
>

I don't think that you're deliberately misrepresenting Harrison's position. I think that there's some chance, perhaps not a very big one, that you might be mistaken about it and that he's not really lying about what he believes or perhaps he is just too confused to know what he believes.

[Derek]

On 12/02/2013 22:13, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>> farm yard?
>
> He

and just about everyone else you've displayed your ignorance to
understands your argument better than you do, but you're too stupid to
know that, so shut up and listen for a bit. If you're going to make a
distinction between lives of positive and negative value you must either
*locate* a hedonic zero point or /place/ it somewhere yourself and hope
your listener agrees with you. It's about as simple as that. But you'll
never locate it, fuckwit, and you'll never get your listener to agree
with you on where you want to place it, either, because you're a
sadistic cunt who participates in blood sports. You have no regard for
animal welfare, at all, and you enjoy watching animals fitted with sharp
barbs tethered to their feet fight to the death. You've admitted kicking
your dog into obedience and still insist that you have a healthy
relationship with him. In short, fuckwit, you'll never get an ethical
vegetarian to agree with your placement of a hedonic zero point in any
animal, and from there convince her that what you do to them is a good
thing. Take a glance at the subject title of this thread again and start
realising it.

[Derek]

On 14/02/2013 07:29, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 8:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:41:26 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:45:13 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>> There are two claims here:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Harrison has not given a satisfactory definition of the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value.
>>>
>>> It's not up to me to explain it to you any more than it's up to me to
>>> explain anything else in a way you can comprehend. YOU don't believe the
>>> distinction between the two entirely different types of situation means
>>> anything, regardless of anything at all to do with me.
>>
>> Of course it is your job to explain what you mean by the distinction. It plays a central role in your argument. If you can't give any meaningful explanation of what the distinction means, then you don't have an argument worth anything.
>
> LOL!!! Took you long enough.

Didn't it!

>>>> (2) Given that he has failed to specify what he means by it, it is open for a vegetarian debating with him to claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value.
>>>
>>> That would contradict your belief that there is no meaning, since that shows
>>> you believe it does have meaning.
>>
>> If I actually made the move of making the claim that all farm animals have lives of negative value, then that would contradict any previous statement that I made about the distinction between lives of positive value and lives of negative value not being a meaningful one.
>>
>> But I never made this move.

Oh yes, that's right.

>> I simply agreed with Derek's observation that it is a possible move for a vegetarian to make in response to your argument.

And that's that. Well done, Whoopie.

[George Plimpton]

On 2/14/2013 12:50 PM, Derek wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 22:13, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:03 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you ever stopped to think that Harrison's failure to locate or
>>> place a hedonic zero point between lives of negative and positive
>>> value leaves the way open for vegetarians to place it outside the
>>> farm yard?
>>
>> He
>
> and just about everyone else you've displayed your ignorance to
> understands your argument better than you do, but you're too stupid to
> know that, so shut up and listen for a bit. If you're going to make a
> distinction between lives of positive and negative value you must either
> *locate* a hedonic zero point or /place/ it somewhere yourself and hope
> your listener agrees with you. It's about as simple as that. But you'll
> never locate it, fuckwit, and you'll never get your listener to agree
> with you on where you want to place it, either, because you're a
> sadistic cunt who participates in blood sports.

Good points.

Fuckwit will never even attempt to locate or place it, because he knows
the entire concept is bullshit. "Their lives" have *NO* value to the
animals. They're incapable of conceiving or understanding a value to
them. Fuckwit continually blabbers about what's important "to the
animals," but in fact, it is perfectly clear and has been clear all
along that it's what's important *to Fuckwit*, and that he is trying to
project that onto the animals. Even worse, his attempted projection is
dishonest. He tries to make it appear that it's a concern for animal
welfare, but of course we know it isn't, because he has told us:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

His only interest is that the livestock animals exist, so he may
continue to consume products from them. He doesn't care about their
welfare, and he doesn't care about their "getting to experience life";
all of that is just a shabby cover for his only real concern, which is
that they continue to exist so he can consume them.

To get back to the hedonic zero point placement and the definitions of
positive and negative value, consider the analogy of a coin with an
obverse and a reverse, which we'll call heads and tails. If asked to
define heads, Fuckwit would answer "not tails", and vice-versa.

[Derek]

On 14/02/2013 08:15, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:05:32 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton
> wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 9:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:51:20 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[]

>>> In this quote, Ball is entertaining for the sake of argument (not
>>> because he actually believes it) the possibility that there might
>>> be some kind of entity called the soul which exists prior to
>>> conception.
>>
>> Exactly. And Fuckwit *knows* that, too. Fuckwit *knows* that I'm
>> not describing my own beliefs, but rather am talking about a
>> hypothetical situation that might describe someone's beliefs, but not mine.
>>
>> So, Fuckwit is lying (by omission of context) in trying to ascribe
>> this belief to me. He's done it repeatedly - he has posted the same
>> mangled quote dozens of times. It's a lie, and *you* know it's a lie. So,
>> two questions:
>>
>> 1. Why do you suppose Fuckwit keeps attempting the same lie?
>>
>> 2. Why don't you call him a liar, when *you know* he is lying?
>
> I do not claim any insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour.

What *drives* Harrison's behaviour is his oppositional defiant
disorder and a want to take out his petty frustrations, here, on a
forum where it's "tough shit if the other guys don't like it."

[start]
>A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
>1. often loses temper
>2. often argues with adults
>3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or
rules
>4. often deliberately annoys people
>5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
>6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
>7. is often angry and resentful
>8. is often spiteful or vindictive
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9 years?!!!!
[Harrison]
That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am
an adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't make a
big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence on me,
whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these ngs I can
point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it. So
these places are a place to take out frustration.
David Harrison 25 May 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8

So now you know what drives Harrison's behaviour. By his own
carefully-chosen words, he's just trolling to take out his petty
frustrations on people here.

> I
> don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very well be
> deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure, because I really
> have no way of knowing what limits there are to his stupidity.

Just say it.

[Derek]

I agree with every point apart from this one, partially. Yes, he wants
livestock breeding to continue so that he can consume their products,
but I believe there's a higher interest here that doesn't go unnoticed.
He knows there will always be livestock to eat during his lifetime, so
he doesn't feel threatened into the position of arguing for more of the
same. I see his argument as a defence against another threat: guilt.

> To get back to the hedonic zero point placement and the definitions of
> positive and negative value, consider the analogy of a coin with an
> obverse and a reverse, which we'll call heads and tails. If asked to
> define heads, Fuckwit would answer "not tails", and vice-versa.

No, the queer would ignore the real question and squeal, "Heads I get
tail, tails I get head."

[Spamβuster]

On 2/14/2013 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
> On 14/02/2013 07:29, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 8:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>

--

=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRY
=====================================================================

[Spamβuster]

On 2/14/2013 2:22 PM, Derek wrote:
> On 14/02/2013 21:26, George Plimpton wrote:
>>

[Rupert]

It's a thought.

I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur psychiatric diagnoses.

Of course, if Harrison is in fact just trolling, then it would probably rational for everyone to just killfile him and ignore him.

>
>
> > I
>
> > don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very well be
>
> > deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure, because I really
>
> > have no way of knowing what limits there are to his stupidity.
>
>
>
> Just say it.

But why? :) That would be silly. Why do you want me to say what you want me to say, instead of what I really think? I don't get it.

[Derek]

>> Harrison 25 May 2000 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8

>>
>> So now you know what drives Harrison's behaviour. By his own
>> carefully-chosen words, he's just trolling to take out his petty
>> frustrations on people here.
>
> It's a thought.

No, it's an inescapable fact made plain by Harrison's own words.
A frank confession that reveals exactly "what drives Harrison's
behaviour." You cannot continue to feign ignorance by writing,

"I do not claim any insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour."

You *do* have a clear insight, "an understanding of the motivational
forces behind one's actions, thoughts, or behavior"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight into "what drives
Harrison's behaviour."

He doesn't use these forums to discuss things honestly in good
faith. For him, "these places are a place to take out frustration"
"and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it." In short, trolling.

> I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur
> psychiatric diagnoses.

I didn't make it. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc

> Of course, if Harrison is in fact just trolling, then it would
> probably rational for everyone to just killfile him and ignore him.

Or, better, make it known to him that you object to his dishonest
behaviour.

>>> I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very well
>>> be deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure, because I
>>> really have no way of knowing what limits there are to his
>>> stupidity.
>>
>> Just say it.
>
> But why? :) That would be silly. Why do you want me to say what you
> want me to say, instead of what I really think?

Because what I say is actually what you think, but you're too
stubborn to acknowledge it. You *know* he's deliberately lying
by part-quoting Jon to misrepresent his true position against the
proposition of animal rights, especially so when you've seen how
many times he's been corrected but continues to part-quote those
same quotes over and over again.

> I don't get it.

Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that David
Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine position
against the proposition of animal rights."

[Rupert]

Well, you insinuated that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder, that's not in the quotation you gave from him, those are your own thoughts about the matter.

>
>
> > Of course, if Harrison is in fact just trolling, then it would
>
> > probably rational for everyone to just killfile him and ignore him.
>
>
>
> Or, better, make it known to him that you object to his dishonest
>
> behaviour.
>

That would be better, would it?

>
>
> >>> I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very well
>
> >>> be deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure, because I
>
> >>> really have no way of knowing what limits there are to his
>
> >>> stupidity.
>
> >>
>
> >> Just say it.
>
> >
>
> > But why? :) That would be silly. Why do you want me to say what you
>
> > want me to say, instead of what I really think?
>
>
>
> Because what I say is actually what you think, but you're too
>
> stubborn to acknowledge it. You *know* he's deliberately lying
>
> by part-quoting Jon to misrepresent his true position against the
>
> proposition of animal rights, especially so when you've seen how
>
> many times he's been corrected but continues to part-quote those
>
> same quotes over and over again.
>

I think that this idea of yours that you can read my mind is a little bit silly.

>
>
> > I don't get it.
>
>
>
> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that David
>
> Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine position
>
> against the proposition of animal rights."

I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to me saying it.

[Derek]

No comment? Thought not.

>>> I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur
>>> psychiatric diagnoses.
>>
>> I didn't make it. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
>
> Well, you insinuated that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder,
> that's not in the quotation you gave from him, those are your own
> thoughts about the matter.

No, go to the link I provided and see that I wasn't even involved
in the thread. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
while going through Google archives. He was discussing his
mental health problems there. Why do you always get everything
wrong? Why don't you do a bit of your own research instead of
ignorantly jumping to the wrong conclusions?

>>> Of course, if Harrison is in fact just trolling, then it would
>>> probably rational for everyone to just killfile him and ignore
>>> him.
>>
>> Or, better, make it known to him that you object to his dishonest
>> behaviour.
>
> That would be better, would it?

Yes.

>>>>> I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very
>>>>> well be deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure,
>>>>> because I really have no way of knowing what limits there are
>>>>> to his stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Just say it.
>>>
>>> But why? :) That would be silly. Why do you want me to say what
>>> you want me to say, instead of what I really think?
>>
>> Because what I say is actually what you think, but you're too
>> stubborn to acknowledge it. You *know* he's deliberately lying
>> by part-quoting Jon to misrepresent his true position against the
>> proposition of animal rights, especially so when you've seen how
>> many times he's been corrected but continues to part-quote those
>> same quotes over and over again.
>>
> I think that this idea of yours that you can read my mind is a
> little bit silly.

It has nothing to do with mind-reading. You know that. The weight
of evidence compels you to say it.

>>> I don't get it.
>>
>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that David
>> Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine position
>> against the proposition of animal rights."
>
> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to me
> saying it.

Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it isn't
my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?

[Rupert]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:29:26 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
> On 15/02/2013 10:59, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:43:31 AM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>
> >> No, it's an inescapable fact made plain by Harrison's own words. A
>
> >> frank confession that reveals exactly "what drives Harrison's
>
> >> behaviour." You cannot continue to feign ignorance by writing, "I
>
> >> do not claim any insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour."
>
> >>
>
> >> You *do* have a clear insight, "an understanding of the
>
> >> motivational forces behind one's actions, thoughts, or behavior"
>
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight into "what drives
>
> >> Harrison's behaviour."
>
> >>
>
> >> He doesn't use these forums to discuss things honestly in good
>
> >> faith. For him, "these places are a place to take out frustration"
>
> >> "and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it." In short,
>
> >> trolling.
>
>
>
> No comment? Thought not.
>

I didn't bother to make any comment at the time, no.

I would say, however, that it seems to me that the quotation you provide from Harrison doesn't make it absolutely clear that he's not discussing things in good faith.

>
>
> >>> I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur
>
> >>> psychiatric diagnoses.
>
> >>
>
> >> I didn't make it. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
>
> >
>
> > Well, you insinuated that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder,
>
> > that's not in the quotation you gave from him, those are your own
>
> > thoughts about the matter.
>
>
>
> No, go to the link I provided and see that I wasn't even involved
>
> in the thread. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
>
> while going through Google archives. He was discussing his
>
> mental health problems there. Why do you always get everything
>
> wrong? Why don't you do a bit of your own research instead of
>
> ignorantly jumping to the wrong conclusions?
>

Well, if you've got a quotation from Harrison saying that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder, you should have given it. I was just going by the quotation you actually provided. It's not some kind of shortcoming on my part that I didn't bother to follow the link.

>
>
> >>> Of course, if Harrison is in fact just trolling, then it would
>
> >>> probably rational for everyone to just killfile him and ignore
>
> >>> him.
>
> >>
>
> >> Or, better, make it known to him that you object to his dishonest
>
> >> behaviour.
>
> >
>
> > That would be better, would it?
>
>
>
> Yes.
>

And why would that be?

>
>
> >>>>> I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. He might very
>
> >>>>> well be deliberately lying, but I don't know that for sure,
>
> >>>>> because I really have no way of knowing what limits there are
>
> >>>>> to his stupidity.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Just say it.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> But why? :) That would be silly. Why do you want me to say what
>
> >>> you want me to say, instead of what I really think?
>
> >>
>
> >> Because what I say is actually what you think, but you're too
>
> >> stubborn to acknowledge it. You *know* he's deliberately lying
>
> >> by part-quoting Jon to misrepresent his true position against the
>
> >> proposition of animal rights, especially so when you've seen how
>
> >> many times he's been corrected but continues to part-quote those
>
> >> same quotes over and over again.
>
> >>
>
> > I think that this idea of yours that you can read my mind is a
>
> > little bit silly.
>
>
>
> It has nothing to do with mind-reading. You know that. The weight
>
> of evidence compels you to say it.
>

Definitely looks like an attempt at mind-reading to me.

>
>
> >>> I don't get it.
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that David
>
> >> Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine position
>
> >> against the proposition of animal rights."
>
> >
>
> > I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to me
>
> > saying it.
>
>
>
> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it isn't
>
> my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>
> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?

So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?

[Derek]

On 15/02/2013 11:59, Rupert wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:29:26 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>> On 15/02/2013 10:59, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:43:31 AM UTC+1, Derek wrote:
>>
>>>> No, it's an inescapable fact made plain by Harrison's own
>>>> words. A frank confession that reveals exactly "what drives
>>>> Harrison's behaviour." You cannot continue to feign ignorance
>>>> by writing, "I do not claim any insight into what drives
>>>> Harrison's behaviour."
>>>>
>>>> You *do* have a clear insight, "an understanding of the
>>>> motivational forces behind one's actions, thoughts, or
>>>> behavior" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight into
>>>> "what drives Harrison's behaviour."
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't use these forums to discuss things honestly in good
>>>> faith. For him, "these places are a place to take out
>>>> frustration" "and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it."
>>>> In short, trolling.
>>
>> No comment? Thought not.
>
> I didn't bother to make any comment at the time, no.
>
> I would say, however, that it seems to me that the quotation you
> provide from Harrison doesn't make it absolutely clear that he's not
> discussing things in good faith.

He confessed openly, "these places are a place to take out
frustration" ... "and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it."
That's not a person who comes here to discuss things honestly
and in good faith. Your inability to accept that confession as
evidence marks you down as incompetent, to say the least.

>>>>> I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur
>>>>> psychiatric diagnoses.
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't make it. I lifted his confession from
>>>> sci.psychology.misc
>>>
>>> Well, you insinuated that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder,
>>> that's not in the quotation you gave from him, those are your
>>> own thoughts about the matter.
>>
>> No, go to the link I provided and see that I wasn't even involved
>> in the thread. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
>> while going through Google archives. He was discussing his
>> mental health problems there. Why do you always get everything
>> wrong? Why don't you do a bit of your own research instead of
>> ignorantly jumping to the wrong conclusions?
>
> Well, if you've got a quotation from Harrison saying that he has
> Oppositional Defiant Disorder, you should have given it.

I gave you a link to a discussion where he confessed to the person
he was discussing ODD with that he suffers from the list of given
symptoms by admitting, "That does go on, and it's very annoying
in real life." He then goes on to confess that "these places are a
place to take out frustration" ... "and tough shit if the other guy
doesn't like it." What more do you want? What more do you need?

[start]
>A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
>1. often loses temper
>2. often argues with adults
>3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests
or rules
>4. often deliberately annoys people
>5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
>6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
>7. is often angry and resentful
>8. is often spiteful or vindictive
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9 years?!!!!
[Harrison]
That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am
an adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't make a
big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence on me,
whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these ngs I can
point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it. So
these places are a place to take out frustration.

David Harrison 25 May 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8

So there you have it; a frank confession from Harrison himself
that stops you from feigning ignorance by writing, "I do not claim

any insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour.

> I was just
> going by the quotation you actually provided. It's not some kind of
> shortcoming on my part that I didn't bother to follow the link.

Yes, it is, because once again you've leapt to the wrong conclusion
simply because you were too lazy to check the facts before
making it.

[]

>>>>> I don't get it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that
>>>> David Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine
>>>> position against the proposition of animal rights."
>>>
>>> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to
>>> me saying it.
>>
>> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it isn't
>> my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?
>
> So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?

Yes, absolutely.

[George Plimpton]

I think it's mainly because you have so often said you don't know what
it is with Fuckwit, even though you *do* know. If you had never said
one way or another, it wouldn't matter, but you've repeatedly said you
don't know things about Fuckwit's beliefs and behavior, when in fact you
do know them.

[George Plimpton]

Not to me.

>>>>> I don't get it.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that David
>>
>>>> Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine position
>>
>>>> against the proposition of animal rights."
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to me
>>
>>> saying it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it isn't
>>
>> my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>>
>> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?
>
> So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?

Yes.

[Rupert]

You are entitled to your opinion. You have not persuaded me.

>
>
> >>>>> I think you've got to be a bit careful about making amateur
>
> >>>>> psychiatric diagnoses.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>> I didn't make it. I lifted his confession from
>
> >>>> sci.psychology.misc
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Well, you insinuated that he has Oppositional Defiant Disorder,
>
> >>> that's not in the quotation you gave from him, those are your
>
> >>> own thoughts about the matter.
>
> >>
>
> >> No, go to the link I provided and see that I wasn't even involved
>
> >> in the thread. I lifted his confession from sci.psychology.misc
>
> >> while going through Google archives. He was discussing his
>
> >> mental health problems there. Why do you always get everything
>
> >> wrong? Why don't you do a bit of your own research instead of
>
> >> ignorantly jumping to the wrong conclusions?
>
> >
>
> > Well, if you've got a quotation from Harrison saying that he has
>
> > Oppositional Defiant Disorder, you should have given it.
>
>
>
> I gave you a link to a discussion where he confessed to the person
>
> he was discussing ODD with that he suffers from the list of given
>
> symptoms by admitting, "That does go on, and it's very annoying
>
> in real life." He then goes on to confess that "these places are a
>
> place to take out frustration" ... "and tough shit if the other guy
>
> doesn't like it." What more do you want? What more do you need?
>

Yeah, all right, but it wasn't obvious to me that the quotation you gave from Harrison was a response to a person discussing the symptoms of ODD. In any event, Harrison didn't admit to having ODD, and also my remark stands: you've got to be a bit careful about amateur psychiatric diagnoses.

Okay. So I didn't bother to check the link because I wasn't all that interested, but I did read the quotation that you gave, and I came to the conclusion that the idea that Harrison had ODD was your idea, and that's a shortcoming on my part, is it?

>
>
> []
>
> >>>>> I don't get it.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt that
>
> >>>> David Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's genuine
>
> >>>> position against the proposition of animal rights."
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much importance to
>
> >>> me saying it.
>
> >>
>
> >> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it isn't
>
> >> my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>
> >> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?
>
> >
>
> > So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?
>
>
>
> Yes, absolutely.

It would be interesting to know what you think you are revealing about me.

[Derek]

I'm also entitled to the truth, Whoopie. You *know* "that the quotation
[I] provide from Harrison does[] make it absolutely clear that he's not
discussing things in good faith." I'm entitled to the truth but, because
you're clearly incapable of telling it, I must take that into account and
not expect it.

> You have not persuaded me.

Sure, Whoopie.

Then you should have checked the data before jumping to the
wrong conclusion. You should not have accused me of making
an amateur psychiatric diagnosis before making certain that your
offensive accusation was based on fact. I gave you a link direct to
all the relevant evidence to come to the right conclusion, but
instead of following it you chose to make a baseless accusation
against me. This isn't the first time you've made a fool of yourself
doing this. You do it a lot.

>> [start]
>>
>>> A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
>>
>>> 1. often loses temper 2. often argues with adults 3. often
>>> actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or
>>> rules 4. often deliberately annoys people 5. often blames others
>>> for his or her mistakes or misbehavior 6. is often touchy or
>>> easily annoyed by others 7. is often angry and resentful 8. is
>>> often spiteful or vindictive
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>>
>>> People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9
>>> years?!!!!
>>
>> [Harrison]
>>
>> That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am an
>> adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
>> see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't
>> make a big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence
>> on me, whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these
>> ngs I can point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't
>> like it. So these places are a place to take out frustration. David
>> Harrison 25 May 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8
>>
>> So there you have it; a frank confession from Harrison himself that
>> stops you from feigning ignorance by writing, "I do not claim any
>> insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour.

Good. Settled.

>>> I was just going by the quotation you actually provided. It's not
>>> some kind of shortcoming on my part that I didn't bother to
>>> follow the link.
>>
>> Yes, it is, because once again you've leapt to the wrong conclusion
>> simply because you were too lazy to check the facts before making
>> it.
>
> Okay. So I didn't bother to check the link because I wasn't all that
> interested, but I did read the quotation that you gave, and I came
> to the

wrong

> conclusion that the idea that Harrison had ODD was your idea,
> and that's a shortcoming on my part, is it?

Yes, absolutely. You should not have accused me of something
without first checking the evidence put in front of you. I gave
you a working link direct to the evidence, so you have no excuse
for leaping to the wrong conclusion.

>>>>>>> I don't get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt
>>>>>> that David Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's
>>>>>> genuine position against the proposition of animal rights."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much
>>>>> importance to me saying it.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it
>>>> isn't my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>>>> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?
>>>
>>> So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely.
>
> It would be interesting to know what you think you are revealing
> about me.

Well, we haven't finished yet, but a lot has come out already.

[Rupert]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 7:05:16 PM UTC+1, Derek wrote:

> On 15/02/2013 15:53, Rupert wrote:
>
> > You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>
>
> I'm also entitled to the truth, Whoopie. You *know* "that the quotation
>
> [I] provide from Harrison does[] make it absolutely clear that he's not
>
> discussing things in good faith." I'm entitled to the truth but, because
>
> you're clearly incapable of telling it, I must take that into account and
>
> not expect it.
>

No. I do not know that. I'm sorry that you've got the idea that I'm not telling the truth.

Why?

> You should not have accused me of making
>
> an amateur psychiatric diagnosis before making certain that your
>
> offensive accusation was based on fact.

I apologize if I offended you.

> I gave you a link direct to
>
> all the relevant evidence to come to the right conclusion, but
>
> instead of following it you chose to make a baseless accusation
>
> against me.

Well, it was just a misunderstanding, that's all. You can't reasonably expect me to click on every single link you provide. I'm very sorry that it was so upsetting to you.

> This isn't the first time you've made a fool of yourself
>
> doing this. You do it a lot.
>

I think you're blowing it out of proportion a little bit. It was just a misunderstanding because I didn't bother to click on the link. As I say, you can't reasonably expect me to click on every link that you provide.

>
>
> >> [start]
>
> >>
>
> >>> A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
>
> >>
>
> >>> 1. often loses temper 2. often argues with adults 3. often
>
> >>> actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or
>
> >>> rules 4. often deliberately annoys people 5. often blames others
>
> >>> for his or her mistakes or misbehavior 6. is often touchy or
>
> >>> easily annoyed by others 7. is often angry and resentful 8. is
>
> >>> often spiteful or vindictive
>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>
> >>
>
> >>> People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9
>
> >>> years?!!!!
>
> >>
>
> >> [Harrison]
>
> >>
>
> >> That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am an
>
> >> adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
>
> >> see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't
>
> >> make a big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence
>
> >> on me, whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these
>
> >> ngs I can point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't
>
> >> like it. So these places are a place to take out frustration. David
>
> >> Harrison 25 May 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8
>
> >>
>
> >> So there you have it; a frank confession from Harrison himself that
>
> >> stops you from feigning ignorance by writing, "I do not claim any
>
> >> insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour.
>
>
>
> Good. Settled.
>

The quotation that you provided does give some degree of insight into what drives Harrison's behaviour. It doesn't really clear up all the mysteries. But it gives some insight, yes.

>
>
> >>> I was just going by the quotation you actually provided. It's not
>
> >>> some kind of shortcoming on my part that I didn't bother to
>
> >>> follow the link.
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes, it is, because once again you've leapt to the wrong conclusion
>
> >> simply because you were too lazy to check the facts before making
>
> >> it.
>
> >
>
> > Okay. So I didn't bother to check the link because I wasn't all that
>
> > interested, but I did read the quotation that you gave, and I came
>
> > to the
>
> wrong
>
> > conclusion that the idea that Harrison had ODD was your idea,
>
> > and that's a shortcoming on my part, is it?
>
>
>
> Yes, absolutely. You should not have accused me of something
>
> without first checking the evidence put in front of you. I gave
>
> you a working link direct to the evidence, so you have no excuse
>
> for leaping to the wrong conclusion.
>

Is it offensive to accuse someone of making an amateur psychiatric diagnosis?

>
>
> >>>>>>> I don't get it.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> Yes you do, so say it. Say, "I'm no longer in any doubt
>
> >>>>>> that David Harrison must be intentionally lying about Jon's
>
> >>>>>> genuine position against the proposition of animal rights."
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> I wonder exactly why it is that you attach so much
>
> >>>>> importance to me saying it.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Have you ever considered the idea that getting you to say it
>
> >>>> isn't my prime goal here? Can you imagine for one moment that it's
>
> >>>> mainly about revealing something about you rather than Harrison?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> So you think that you're revealing something about me, do you?
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes, absolutely.
>
> >
>
> > It would be interesting to know what you think you are revealing
>
> > about me.
>
>
>
> Well, we haven't finished yet, but a lot has come out already.

Well, as I say, it would be interesting to know what you think has come out.

[dh]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:05:32 -0800, Goo lied to Rupert:

>On 2/13/2013 9:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:51:20 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:52:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea of a "pre-existent state" is obviously a contradiction in terms. Ball doesn't believe in a "pre-existent state".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>>
>>> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>>
>>> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>>
>>
>> In this quote, Ball is entertaining for the sake of argument (not because he actually believes it) the possibility that there might be some kind of entity called the soul which exists prior to conception.
>
>Exactly. And Fuckwit *knows* that, too. Fuckwit *knows* that I'm not
>describing my own beliefs, but rather am talking about a hypothetical
>situation that might describe someone's beliefs, but not mine.

If you want people to believe those aren't your beliefs you need to explain
how you want them to think you disagree with yourself Goob. But you DO agree
with yourself about it Goober. Proved by YOU, Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:50:16 +0000, Derek <dere...@groupmail.com> wrote:

>If you're going to make a
>distinction between lives of positive and negative value you must either
>*locate* a hedonic zero point or /place/ it somewhere yourself

I have done. Now you try it, unless like your Uncle Dr Rupert you can't
comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive and negative value
could possibly mean anything. Of course if you are so clueless as to have no
idea, from my pov it seems extremely stupid of you and he to want to bring about
the elimination of domestic animals unless you also want to eliminate all life
on Earth. That of course is because you claim you can't comprehend any
distinction between the value of life for domestic animals and the value of life
for anything/everything else.

So do you want to eliminate all life on Earth, or do you think you can
comprehend some distinction between lives of positive and negative value and
only want to eliminate some of it?

[dh]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:29:08 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:23:03 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:04:35 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:15:56 PM UTC+1, Dutch wrote:
>>
>> >> dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Your conviction is self-serving. While that may have been true at one
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> seem to be thinking of. Reform is badly needed.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> diet takes precedence for me.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Because pretty much everyone thinks like that, people will continue to purchase meat without worrying too much about how it was produced,
>>
>>
>>
>> Because people made veg*n products popular--often containing egg and egg
>>
>> whites almost certainly obtained from caged hens imo!--while attacking meat
>>
>> instead of encouraging animal friendly animal products.
>>
>
>If it contains eggs or egg whites, then it's not vegan.

That's why I didn't say it is. Are you surprised about that?

>What's your idea of what are the most "animal friendly" products?

For which animals? If you mean the highest percentage of animals overall it
would be meat that has been hunted and wild caught seafood, then grass fed
dairy, grass fed beef, some fruit, regular dairy, regular beef, cage free eggs,
broiler chicken and turkey, some grain products if there are very few wild
animals in the area where it's grown, pork maybe, cage raised eggs, rice.

>> >and the suffering caused by modern factory-farming will continue (until we develop in vitro meat, maybe,
>>
>>
>>
>> Since I believe many livestock have lives of positive value I can consider
>>
>> it better for them to live conscious lives rather than be kept in a comatose
>>
>> condition or even just growing meat in vats or something. Eliminationists can't,
>>
>> but I can.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe one day you will get around to explaining what exactly you mean by "lives of positive value".

I'll never do it in a way that you can comprehend what the meaning is,
because you're not able to comprehend the distinction in any way, so you claim.
And as long as you claim that you're too stupid to figure it out in any way even
asking your professors or your father to help you figure it out, then we can't
discuss which animals appear to have one type and which another. My father was
obviously not nearly as stupid as yours is, because he explained the difference
to me and we observed and discussed examples like the sheep down the road appear
to have lives of positive value while a dog that is beaten daily just for the
entertainment of a child does not. Those are only two of the countless type of
examples we considered, but you don't even understand how anyone could ever
appreciate a distinction and your father can't either, so you claim. I would
never claim that my father was too stupid to explain the difference to me
though. Instead of just leading me to believe he is too stupid without letting
him tell us whether he is or not, you should ask him. Ask him this specifically,
without trying to restrict his interpretation to anything at all to do with me:

"Can you comprehend what the distinction between a life of positive value for
the individual and a life of negative value for the individual would be? If so,
can you give me any sort of explanation as to what that distinction is?"

>> >or until we are forced to move to a more sustainable use of land as the world's population increases).
>>
>>
>>
>> I feel rotational grazing could be a big help.
>
>Could be.

If so do you think there's any chance you could ever learn to appreciate it?
If so, how could you when you can't appreciate any other aspect of human
influence on domestic animals? If you ever learn to, do you think it could help
you move on to appreciate even more aspects of human influence on domestic
animals, possibly some day even some of their lives? No, you couldn't ever learn
that and the Goos wouldn't allow you to even if you tried.

[dh]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:36:54 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:

>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:15:56 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I'm convinced that the vast majority of beef cattle, dairy cattle,
>>>> broiler chickens, parents of broiler chickens, cage free laying hens, parents of
>>>> cage free laying hens and caged laying hens, sheep, and turkeys have lives of
>>>> positive value, many of those actually being "good" (the benefit they get from
>>>> experiencing them outweighs the burden), then I don't see that you have anything
>>>> to complain about them existing now and in the future.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your conviction is self-serving.
>>

>> It wouldn't matter if it was it would still be true none the less. Since I
>> don't eat sheep and very little turkey but can appreciate their lives as well as
>> broilers even so, you're meaningless claim is also dishonest.

>>
>>> While that may have been true at one
>>> time, and still is in some isolated cases, it is getting increasingly
>>> difficult to morally support animal farming in it's present form, which
>>> is large scale industrial production, not The Salatin Farm, which you
>>> seem to be thinking of.
>>

>> I'm talking about modern methods.

>>
>>> Reform is badly needed.
>>>
>>> In my view, on the whole, vegetarians occupy the higher ground with
>>> respect to the amount of animal suffering they support with their diets,
>>> and I'm fine with that. My own interest in having a rich and flavorful
>>> diet takes precedence for me.
>>

>> IF you really do eat meat your refusal to consider the lives of the animals
>> you consume is on as low a level as you could get from my pov, since I don't see
>> how you could go any lower.
>
>Saying that I am on a low level implies that, say, relative to you, I am
>causing some sort of harm. Can you elaborate on that? What harm am I
>causing that you are not causing?

We both contribute to the deaths of livestock IF you eat meat, but you don't
care enough about the animals you claim to consume to even take them into
consideration. How could you get any lower than that? The only way you could get
lower imo would be if you enjoyed the fact that many of them suffer, and now
that we mention it I've certainly gotten the impression that you do love
thinking about that. You certainly enjoy considering the suffering more than you
do the things that are of positive value, that much is without question and that
alone makes you the lowest of the low, from my pov.