No consideration for animals' lives

[Delma T. Ivey]

The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
*all* it means.

He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives as
animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
abundantly clear over 11 years:

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

Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

[Rupert]

On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
wrote:

> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals.  What he means
> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
> *all* it means.
>

Not very likely to be true, and extremely boring and unimportant.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> wrote:
>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>> *all* it means.
>>
>
> Not very likely to be true

It is true.

[Rupert]

I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
opinion of yours has a rational foundation.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>> *all* it means.
>>
>>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>> It is true.
>
> I was aware that that was your opinion.

It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.

[Rupert]

You're boring.

[i2i]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0455a90-8882-4f62...@n13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

you dipshit dumbfucks that keep
repeating this crossposted thread
ad nauseum ad infinitum are all
way beyond boring.

[George Plimpton]

Sure I am. <chortle> That's why you reply to every post I make.

[George Plimpton]

Rupert is wobbly. That's not boring.

[Dutch]

It is unquestionably true, and if you are not challenging him on that
issue then there's no reason to be responding to him at all.
"Consideration" in fuckwit lingo means racking up points every time a
livestock animal "gets to experience life" that it would not have gotten
otherwise (provided it is a decent life as Salt says). The Logic of the
Larder is the only even marginally interesting idea he has, and that's
because it is so spectacularly illogical and dimwitted.

[Dutch]

Offer a rational alternative definition for his use of the word. The
normal interpretation would be behaving in ways that result in better
conditions for livestock animals. Any reasonable person thinks that what
it means. He doesn't. He thinks that we are missing "the big picture" if
we don't also consider that those animals only exist because we use them
to manufacture products. The Logic of the Larder. So by "considering"
that these animals only exist because we raise them, we are supposed to
be doing something important, presumably to benefit them. But he can't
say what, naturally, because it's just self-serving circular nonsense.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 11:05 AM, Dutch wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist.
>>>>> That's
>>>>> *all* it means.
>>>
>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>>
>>> It is true.
>>
>> I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>> opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>>
>
> Offer a rational alternative definition for his use of the word. The
> normal interpretation would be behaving in ways that result in better
> conditions for livestock animals. Any reasonable person thinks that what
> it means. He doesn't. He thinks that we are missing "the big picture" if
> we don't also consider that those animals only exist because we use them
> to manufacture products. The Logic of the Larder.

The reason for their existence is obvious and requires no "consideration".

What Fuckwit demands that others like and applaud is that the animals
"get to experience life." No matter how he tries to dress it up, no
matter what shitty turgid prose he wraps it in, what Fuckwit is saying
is that those who don't want the animals to exist are doing something
wrong to "them" - to the unborn farm animals.

> So by "considering"
> that these animals only exist because we raise them, we are supposed to
> be doing something important, presumably to benefit them. But he can't
> say what, naturally, because it's just self-serving circular nonsense.

There is nothing "in it for the animals." They don't "get" something
they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

It is not important "to the animals" that they come into existence.
There is nothing to consider.

[Rupert]

On 3 Aug., 20:05, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
> >>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals.  What he means
> >>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
> >>>> *all* it means.
>
> >>> Not very likely to be true
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
> > opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>
> Offer a rational alternative definition for his use of the word. The
> normal interpretation would be behaving in ways that result in better
> conditions for livestock animals. Any reasonable person thinks that what
> it means. He doesn't. He thinks that we are missing "the big picture" if
> we don't also consider that those animals only exist because we use them
> to manufacture products.

Where has he said that?

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 11:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 20:05, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>>>> *all* it means.
>>
>>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>> I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>>> opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>>
>> Offer a rational alternative definition for his use of the word. The
>> normal interpretation would be behaving in ways that result in better
>> conditions for livestock animals. Any reasonable person thinks that what
>> it means. He doesn't. He thinks that we are missing "the big picture" if
>> we don't also consider that those animals only exist because we use them
>> to manufacture products.
>
> Where has he said that?

Fuck off - you're just trying to waste time again.

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 20:05, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>>>> *all* it means.
>>
>>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>> I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>>> opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>>
>> Offer a rational alternative definition for his use of the word. The
>> normal interpretation would be behaving in ways that result in better
>> conditions for livestock animals. Any reasonable person thinks that what
>> it means. He doesn't. He thinks that we are missing "the big picture" if
>> we don't also consider that those animals only exist because we use them
>> to manufacture products.
>
> Where has he said that?

Here, hundreds of times.

[dh]

Then enlighten us with your brilliance and explain whether you think the
lives of livestock should be given as much or more consideration than their
deaths, or not. Then try explaining why. Unless you can't handle it, in which
case this aspect of human influence on animals isn't boring to you, it's beyond
you.

[dh]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:44:37 -0700, Goo "boasted":

>Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>meat

"I eat meat." - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - 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

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

[dh]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:46:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Since I mention the distinction very regularly I can't believe even Goo is
too stupid to know I'm aware of it. That means I'm convinced the Goober is aware
of it, and there's no way he could persuade me to believe he's not. So what
we're STILL left with is the question of why Goo is so interested in trying to
promote his particular lies about me. What does Goo think he would gain if he
could persuade people that I believe as he does about quality of life for
livestock, which is that it doesn't matter? What does Goo think he would gain if
he could persuade people that I believe as billions of Hindus do, which is that
we have multiple lives on this planet? What does the stupid Goober think could
be in it for him if he can persuade people to believe those particular lies???

[Delma T. Ivey]

The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
*all* it means.

Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly

[George Plimpton]

On 8/6/2012 3:09 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:46:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>>> *all* it means.
>>>
>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>>
>>> It is true.
>>
>> I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>> opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>
> Since I mention the distinction very regularly

Fuckwit, you don't mention any "distinction". All you do is say that
non-existent farm animals somehow merit moral consideration that
necessarily leads, in your fuckwittery, to wanting the animals to exist.
It's absurd.

[i2i]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:5ff028pj41dtu6qfh...@4ax.com...

presto ! you're enlightened !
feel better now ?

[Dutch]

What do you mean by "give their lives consideration"? I know you don't
mean give their *welfare* consideration, or that's what you would have
said, so what else could it mean? You wouldn't be implying brownie
points for eating McNuggets by any chance, hmmmm?

[Julian]

On 07/08/2012 06:22, i2i wrote:
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:5ff028pj41dtu6qfh...@4ax.com...

>> Then enlighten us
>
> presto ! you're enlightened !
> feel better now ?

Don't be cruel to dumb animals.

[i2i]

"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jvqq2n$76i$1...@dont-email.me...

do0d ! i have the greatest compassion
for those dumb animal's lives that are
posting all those silly messages.

[Julian]

Tro0.

[George Plimpton]

The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
*all* it means.

[Rupert]

You've made the same post three times in one week, in the same thread.

[George Plimpton]

That's false.

[Rupert]

Is that so, now.

[George Plimpton]

Yep.

[Rupert]

Are these three posts yours?


https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/ec918507821fa4a9?hl=de&dmode=source
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/a8e9e8c2113c4d7e?hl=de&dmode=source
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/309f5f3d7a3f0491?hl=de&dmode=source

[George Plimpton]

One of those posts, from today, is by George Plimpton. The other two
are by Delma Ivey. The earlier of Mr. Ivey's posts is from 2 August.
Today is 9 August. You claimed "You've made the same post three times
in one week..." Eight days is more than a week.

[Rupert]

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/ec9...
> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/a8e...
> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/309...

>
> One of those posts, from today, is by George Plimpton.  The other two
> are by Delma Ivey.  The earlier of Mr. Ivey's posts is from 2 August.
> Today is 9 August.  You claimed "You've made the same post three times
> in one week..."  Eight days is more than a week.

The post on 2 August is Aug. 2, 22.44. The post on 9 August is Aug. 9,
16.42. The time interval between the two posts is less than one week.

It is farcical for you to claim that you are not the same person as
Delma Ivey.

You really are very funny.

[George Plimpton]

A week is seven days, including the endpoints. A week including 2 Aug
would end on 8 Aug. 9 Aug would not be included in that week.

[Warren E. Harrison]

[George Plimpton]

I said I was going to repost this, but Warren beat me to it.

[dh]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:33:09 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:09:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:46:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>On aug. 3, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>

>>>> > On 2 Aug., 22:44, Goo

>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>> >> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. �What he means
>>>> >> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>> >> *all* it means.
>>>>
>>>> > Not very likely to be true
>>>>
>>>> It is true.
>>>
>>>I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>>>opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>>

>> Since I mention the distinction very regularly I can't believe even Goo is
>>too stupid to know I'm aware of it. That means I'm convinced the Goober is aware
>>of it, and there's no way he could persuade me to believe he's not. So what
>>we're STILL left with is the question of why Goo is so interested in trying to
>>promote his particular lies about me. What does Goo think he would gain if he
>>could persuade people that I believe as he does about quality of life for
>>livestock, which is that it doesn't matter? What does Goo think he would gain if
>>he could persuade people that I believe as billions of Hindus do, which is that
>>we have multiple lives on this planet? What does the stupid Goober think could
>>be in it for him if he can persuade people to believe those particular lies???
>

>Fuckwit, you don't mention any "distinction"

The stupidity level of the blatancy of that particular lie is about as high
as it's possible to get, Goo.

[dh]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 01:22:45 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:

>> Then enlighten us with your brilliance and explain whether you think the
>>lives of livestock should be given as much or more consideration than their
>>deaths, or not. Then try explaining why. Unless you can't handle it, in which
>>case this aspect of human influence on animals isn't boring to you, it's beyond
>>you.
>

>presto ! you're enlightened !
>feel better now ?

You've shown you're so completely clueless about what I challenged you to
try explaining that it IS beyond you, so I'm glad to know it is.

[dh]

To anyone except a hard core eliminationist considering their lives
necessarily means considering the quality and welfare of those lives.

>You wouldn't be implying brownie
>points for eating McNuggets by any chance, hmmmm?

Some animals experience lives of positive value to them because humans raise
chickens for food. To an eliminationist that's not a good thing, but to people
who can appreciate decent lives for livestock it's good that they experience
decent lives. You people don't like it because all a veg*n diet contributes to
is death for wildlife, but it does NOTHING for livestock animals as a their
consumer's diets do.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison got caught lying again:

>>>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>>>>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>>>>>>> *all* it means.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true.
>>>>
>>>> I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
>>>> opinion of yours has a rational foundation.
>>>
>>> Since I mention the distinction very regularly I can't believe even Goo is
>>> too stupid to know I'm aware of it. That means I'm convinced the Goober is aware
>>> of it, and there's no way he could persuade me to believe he's not. So what
>>> we're STILL left with is the question of why Goo is so interested in trying to
>>> promote his particular lies about me. What does Goo think he would gain if he
>>> could persuade people that I believe as he does about quality of life for
>>> livestock, which is that it doesn't matter? What does Goo think he would gain if
>>> he could persuade people that I believe as billions of Hindus do, which is that
>>> we have multiple lives on this planet? What does the stupid Goober think could
>>> be in it for him if he can persuade people to believe those particular lies???
>>

>> Fuckwit, you don't mention any "distinction". All you do is say that non-existent
>> farm animals somehow merit moral consideration that necessarily leads, in your
>> fuckwittery, to wanting the animals to exist. It's absurd.
>

> The stupidity level of the blatancy of that particular lie

Not a lie, Fuckwit.

"Blatancy" - too funny. That's not a word that occurs naturally in your
cracker vocabulary, Fuckwit.

[i2i]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:lbb828t33lg8tkv7u...@4ax.com...

suffer that then

[x]

are you and goo siamese-retards or just a perfect match?

[possum]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in
message
news:5uWdnc88_6ror7nN...@giganews.com...

sometimes this seems like the white noise or
constant backdrop of insanity...

[spottum]

Okay.

[Dutch]

Try explaining to him why their lives should be given consideration.
List things like benefits to animals, or people, anything actually will do.

I understand why their welfare should be given consideration, because
that makes their lives better, reduces suffering. What does "considering
their lives" do? Maybe start by explaining what that means.

I predict that you will write stupid shit now.

[Dutch]

Then we agree. We should consider animals' welfare, meaning of course do
something about it.

Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.

>
>> You wouldn't be implying brownie
>> points for eating McNuggets by any chance, hmmmm?
>
> Some animals experience lives of positive value to them because humans raise
> chickens for food.

No they don't, they experience lives of positive value because of the
way they are raised.

> To an eliminationist that's not a good thing, but to people
> who can appreciate decent lives for livestock it's good that they experience
> decent lives. You people don't like it because all a veg*n diet contributes to
> is death for wildlife, but it does NOTHING for livestock animals as a their
> consumer's diets do.

A vegan diet has little or nothing to do with the life of a livestock
animal, positively or negatively. Stop trying to claim that that is a
valid criticism, it isn't.

[Rupert]

No, 2+7=9. A week starting on 2 August, 22.44 (German time, one hour
ahead of GMT) would end on 9 August, 22.44 (German time).

[Rupert]

On aug. 9, 22:49, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> I said I was going to repost this, but Warren beat me to it.
>

You and Warren are the same person, you stupid fool.

Why do you keep reposting the same post ad nauseam?

[George Plimpton]

You sure?

> A week starting on 2 August, 22.44 (German time, one hour
> ahead of GMT) would end on 9 August, 22.44 (German time).

No, it wouldn't. A week is seven days. Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
week. Count the number of days (digits) - seven. Aug 9 is not
contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
be the first day of the *next* seven days.

You're an idiot.

[Rupert]

This is really very funny. :)

>  A week is seven days.  Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
> week.  Count the number of days (digits) - seven.  Aug 9 is not
> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>

It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
start at midnight. The problem with this is that this is the Internet
and we are in different time zones. Hence we will not agree about when
a week is allowed to start.

In any event, the requirement is arbitrary. There is no good reason
why a week can't start at 22.44 pm (German time) on August 2. And my
claim about when that week would finish was of course unassailable,
your denial being extremely amusing.

> You're an idiot.

You recently called me a "pedantic literalist twat". I find this
conversation rather amusing in that context. You are splitting hairs,
and the best you could hope to achieve by this is that I should have
said "eight days" rather than "a week".

[George Plimpton]

You keep telling yourselves that - eventually a few of you might believe
that.

>> A week is seven days. Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
>> week. Count the number of days (digits) - seven. Aug 9 is not
>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>>
>
> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
> start at midnight.

People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.

>> You're an idiot.
>
> You recently called me a "pedantic literalist twat".

Yes, with good reason.

[Rupert]

I am just one person, Ball.

> >>   A week is seven days.  Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
> >> week.  Count the number of days (digits) - seven.  Aug 9 is not
> >> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
> >> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>
> > It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
> > start at midnight.
>
> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>

But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
no basis for saying what the start of the week is.

> >> You're an idiot.
>
> > You recently called me a "pedantic literalist twat".
>
> Yes, with good reason.

You don't think you might be being a bit pedantic here to no
especially good purpose?

[George Plimpton]

*I* know that, but you're not convinced.

>>>> A week is seven days. Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
>>>> week. Count the number of days (digits) - seven. Aug 9 is not
>>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
>>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>>
>>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
>>> start at midnight.
>>
>> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>>
>
> But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
> no basis for saying what the start of the week is.

So?

>>>> You're an idiot.
>>
>>> You recently called me a "pedantic literalist twat".
>>
>> Yes, with good reason.
>
> You don't think you might be being a bit pedantic here to no
> especially good purpose?

There's a good purpose.

[Rupert]

Well, you frequently talk as though I am more than one person, and
I've never done that. So the evidence would appear to be that you're
the one who's not quite sure whether I'm only one person.

> >>>>    A week is seven days.  Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
> >>>> week.  Count the number of days (digits) - seven.  Aug 9 is not
> >>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
> >>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>
> >>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
> >>> start at midnight.
>
> >> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>
> > But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
> > no basis for saying what the start of the week is.
>
> So?
>

I wrote "You've made the same post three times in one week, in the
same thread. "

You wrote "That's false."

However, it's not false, it's true. You made the same post three times
in the same thread within a 168-hour period. 168 hours is one week.

You also farcically spoke as though you were not the same person as
Delma Ivey, which was very funny. You seem to be the one who is
confused about whether or not you are just one person.

> >>>> You're an idiot.
>
> >>> You recently called me a "pedantic literalist twat".
>
> >> Yes, with good reason.
>
> > You don't think you might be being a bit pedantic here to no
> > especially good purpose?
>
> There's a good purpose.

And what would that be, I wonder?

[George Plimpton]

Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

> On 10 Aug., 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Aug., 16:51, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:34, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:01, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>>>> ORight on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On aug. 9, 18:48, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 17:54, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 17:35, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:

No, I write as though you suffer from the delusion that you're more than

one person.


>>>>>> A week is seven days. Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
>>>>>> week. Count the number of days (digits) - seven. Aug 9 is not
>>>>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
>>>>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>>
>>>>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
>>>>> start at midnight.
>>
>>>> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>>
>>> But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
>>> no basis for saying what the start of the week is.
>>
>> So?
>>
>
> I wrote "You've made the same post three times in one week, in the
> same thread. "
>
> You wrote "That's false."

And it *is* false.

[Rupert]

Actually, what I said was correct. Also, it's pretty stupid to think
that I'm under the delusion that I'm more than one person.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>     A week is seven days.  Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
> >>>>>> week.  Count the number of days (digits) - seven.  Aug 9 is not
> >>>>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
> >>>>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>
> >>>>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
> >>>>> start at midnight.
>
> >>>> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>
> >>> But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
> >>> no basis for saying what the start of the week is.
>
> >> So?
>
> > I wrote "You've made the same post three times in one week, in the
> > same thread. "
>
> > You wrote "That's false."
>
> And it *is* false.

Actually, I've demonstrated it to be true.

[George Plimpton]

Actually, what *I* said was correct.

>>
>>>>>>>> A week is seven days. Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
>>>>>>>> week. Count the number of days (digits) - seven. Aug 9 is not
>>>>>>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
>>>>>>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>>
>>>>>>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
>>>>>>> start at midnight.
>>
>>>>>> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>>
>>>>> But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
>>>>> no basis for saying what the start of the week is.
>>
>>>> So?
>>
>>> I wrote "You've made the same post three times in one week, in the
>>> same thread. "
>>
>>> You wrote "That's false."
>>
>> And it *is* false.
>
> Actually, I've demonstrated it to be true.

You didn't. You can't count.

[Rupert]

So you appear to believe.

Anyway, where did all this stuff about multiple personality disorder
come from? I find it hard to fathom the workings of your mind.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>      A week is seven days.  Aug 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 - that's a
> >>>>>>>> week.  Count the number of days (digits) - seven.  Aug 9 is not
> >>>>>>>> contained in the seven-day week that includes Aug 2 and Aug 8/; it would
> >>>>>>>> be the first day of the *next* seven days.
>
> >>>>>>> It sounds here as though you are claiming that a week always has to
> >>>>>>> start at midnight.
>
> >>>>>> People experience a day as though it were all a single calendar day.
>
> >>>>> But the start of a calendar day depends on the time zone so you have
> >>>>> no basis for saying what the start of the week is.
>
> >>>> So?
>
> >>> I wrote "You've made the same post three times in one week, in the
> >>> same thread. "
>
> >>> You wrote "That's false."
>
> >> And it *is* false.
>
> > Actually, I've demonstrated it to be true.
>
> You didn't.  You can't count.

I can count very well, and I did demonstrate it to be true. Making the
same post three times within 168 hours is making the same post three
times in one week.

[possum]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in
message

news:roWdnQnI5Pd7srjN...@giganews.com...

hey! you goos just gave me a great idea...
alt. legal. services. thanks. you're
welcome.

[spottum]

Okay.

[Julian]

Who was it who first crossposted Buddhist usenet with
the Kreepy Kretinous Kryptofacscist vegetables?

[Rupert]

Jonathan Ball, aka Delma T. Ivey or George Plimpton.

[Julian]

http://vimeo.com/40086531

[Julian]

Cheers. I figured it was some kind of polyphrenic.

[Mr.Smartypants]

aka Gooberdoodle, Goobernicus, Goober, Goobs, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

> David N. Harrison

That's right.

[dh]

I consider eliminationists in general to be at least to some extent insane,
and consider especially dishonest ones like the goos to be even more insane than
most of them.

[dh]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:20:17 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:lbb828t33lg8tkv7u...@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 01:22:45 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>

>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:59:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:06:35 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:e0455a90-8882-4f62...@n13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>On aug. 3, 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> >> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>>>> >>> wrote:

>>>>>> >>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually
>>>>>> >>>> blabbers
>>>>>> >>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he
>>>>>> >>>> means
>>>>>> >>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist.
>>>>>> >>>> That's
>>>>>> >>>> *all* it means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> Not very likely to be true
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> It is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I was aware that that was your opinion.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You're boring.
>>>>>
>>>>>you dipshit dumbfucks that keep
>>>>>repeating this crossposted thread
>>>>>ad nauseum ad infinitum are all
>>>>>way beyond boring.
>>>>
>>>> Then enlighten us with your brilliance and explain whether you think
>>>> the
>>>>lives of livestock should be given as much or more consideration than
>>>>their

>>>>deaths, or not. Then try explaining why. Unless you can't handle it, in
>>>>which
>>>>case this aspect of human influence on animals isn't boring to you, it's
>>>>beyond
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>presto ! you're enlightened !
>>>feel better now ?
>>
>> You've shown you're so completely clueless about what I challenged you
>> to
>> try explaining that it IS beyond you, so I'm glad to know it is.
>

>suffer that then

It is too bad you don't have anything worth considering, but then neither
does the Goober but that hasn't stopped him from posting plenty of useless lies
and bullshits.

[dh]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 06:26:27 +0800, x <x...@x.org> wrote:

>are you and goo

I point out things that eliminationists like Goo don't want people to think
about because they work against elimination, and Goo lies about my beliefs and
what I'm encouraging people think about again because he can't attack or even
acknowledge what I'm actually suggesting. Those people are opposed to what I
suggest because and ONLY because they work against the elimination objective.

[dh]

Their lives should be given consideration in part just to develope a more
complete interpretation of the big picture. Of course if the fact that they're
going to be killed is to be taken into consideration we must consider what they
gain as well as what they lose. They gain the lives that are later taken away,
meaning they ONLY exist because they are raised to be eaten. So anyone who is
considering the ethics or not of raising animals for food MUST necessarily give
the animals' lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.

>I understand why their welfare should be given consideration, because
>that makes their lives better, reduces suffering. What does "considering
>their lives" do? Maybe start by explaining what that means.

It means to give their lives as much or more consideration than their
deaths. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering
their lives as well as their deaths, and anyone who honestly favors decent AW
over elimination can appreciate when it successfully results in decent lives for
millions of animals.

[dh]

It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious
consumer of animal products and being a veg*n. You chose to become veg*n and
later to start lying about it, but thinking about being a consumer and the
animals lives you would be contributing to made you feel "dirty" so you have
remained whatever sort of veg*n you STILL are. But for people who are more open
than you the lives of the animals that they would be contributing to become an
issue to take into consideration. It's something to think about when deciding
how you want to proceed, and the fact that you're opposed to people considering
the animals' lives is one of the main ways you reveal yourself.

>>> You wouldn't be implying brownie
>>> points for eating McNuggets by any chance, hmmmm?
>>
>> Some animals experience lives of positive value to them because humans raise
>> chickens for food.
>
>No they don't, they experience lives of positive value because of the
>way they are raised.
>
>
>> To an eliminationist that's not a good thing, but to people
>> who can appreciate decent lives for livestock it's good that they experience
>> decent lives. You people don't like it because all a veg*n diet contributes to
>> is death for wildlife, but it does NOTHING for livestock animals as a their
>> consumer's diets do.
>
>A vegan diet has little or nothing to do with the life of a livestock
>animal, positively or negatively. Stop trying to claim that that is a
>valid criticism, it isn't.

It's just a fact that everyone should keep in mind. I've seen people try to
estimate the number of farm animals they've "saved" by being veg*n, when the
fact is that veg*nism does nothing to save any farm animals. People need to keep
that in mind while making their decisions, and also even after they have been
made...ALWAYS!!!...

[George Plimpton]

Everyone considers you to be a lying, illiterate cracker.

[x]

who what.... strange war.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:26:46 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

[..]

>> Try explaining to him why their lives should be given consideration.
>> List things like benefits to animals, or people, anything actually will do.
>
> Their lives should be given consideration in part just to develope a more
> complete interpretation of the big picture.

We breed them, house and feed them, and later kill them and consume
them. Along the way we can choose to make their lives better, or not.
That's the whole picture. All your bullshit is just a lame attempt to
extract some personal glory from the fact that they are living
creatures. Everybody here but you can see this.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> Then we agree. We should consider animals' welfare, meaning of course do
>> something about it.
>>
>> Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.
>
> It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious
> consumer of animal products and being a veg*n.

No it doesn't. If a person wants to be a vegan they are not going to
change their mind because it means some future animal that would have
existed won't get to experience life. Nobody cares, nor should they.

Your argument is, has always been, and always will be, baloney.

[George Plimpton]

His lame bullshit is an attempt to justify killing them. Instead of
simply saying that killing them requires no special justification, which
it doesn't, he instead tries to play a lame bit of sophistry and try to
justify it. It fails.

[George Plimpton]

No, it does *NOT* help such a person in any way. The animals' "getting
to experience life" does not merit any moral consideration - zero.

[dh]

It is. Those people want to eliminate all domestic animals, including pets,
and one of the ways they do it is by pretending to be interested in animal
welfare issues. In fact that's probably the biggest way they get money. From my
impression people send them money thinking that they want to make life better
for domestic animals, not eliminate them entirely making it illegal to own any
at all, which is what their goal is. So right from the ground up it's a strange
war, and they are really the only ones who are fighting. I point out things they
don't want people to take into consideration, and you see how they attack me
just for that.

[dh]

I suggest that people consider aspects of the situation eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists want NOT to be taken into consideration because and ONLY
because doing so works against the elimination objective. You people want
everyone to feel that elimination is the ethically superior choice for your own
personal glory, but taking millions of lives of positive value into
consideration suggests that decent AW instead could be considered ethically
equivalent or superior to elimination.

[dh]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:45:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

>> I consider eliminationists in general to be at least to some extent insane,
>>and consider especially dishonest ones like the goos to be even more insane than
>>most of them.
>

>Everyone considers you to be a lying, illiterate cracker.

I have nothing to lie about Goob. In contrast to that, you believe some of
your lies are "needed".

[dh]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:23:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>

>>>Then we agree. We should consider animals' welfare, meaning of course do
>>>something about it.
>>>
>>>Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.
>>
>> It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious

>>consumer of animal products and being a veg*n. You chose to become veg*n and
>>later to start lying about it, but thinking about being a consumer and the
>>animals lives you would be contributing to made you feel "dirty" so you have
>>remained whatever sort of veg*n you STILL are.
>

>No it doesn't.

Some people would like to continue to eat meat because they enjoy it, but
they feel that a veg*n diet is most ethical. What I suggest offers them an
option: to contribute to decent lives for future livestock instead of not
contributing to anything for livestock. THAT is what eliminationists and ONLY
eliminationists would hate most of all, of course.

>If a person wants to be a vegan they are not going to
>change their mind because it means some future animal that would have
>existed won't get to experience life.

Someone like yourself who has always hated the taste of meat and the thought
of eating an animal etc can't be expected to change, no. But people who LIKE the
taste of meat don't have that problem and THEY are the ones who could benefit
from what I'm pointing out, not people who have always hated meat. LOL...the
fact that you automatically saw it the way you did is something else that
reveals you.

>Nobody cares, nor should they.
>
>Your argument is, has always been, and always will be, baloney.

Do you think it would be ethically superior if people were to keep livestock
in a comatose condition for their entire lives so they never experience
consciousness and life as a livestock animal?

[George Plimpton]

You do, Goo. You know your beliefs appear irrational and just plain
fuckwitted to everyone else - *everyone*, without exception - and you
also know you can't present them in a way in which they wouldn't appear
completely fuckwitted, remember?

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 11/30/1999

So since you can't present your beliefs any better than the shitty
presentation you've already made, and since they appear completely
fuckwitted and stupid, you simply lie and say they aren't your beliefs.
But of course, they *are* your beliefs.

[Dutch]

You offer a false choice, based on a sophism.

>> If a person wants to be a vegan they are not going to
>> change their mind because it means some future animal that would have
>> existed won't get to experience life.
>
> Someone like yourself who has always hated the taste of meat and the thought
> of eating an animal etc can't be expected to change, no. But people who LIKE the
> taste of meat don't have that problem and THEY are the ones who could benefit
> from what I'm pointing out, not people who have always hated meat. LOL...the
> fact that you automatically saw it the way you did is something else that
> reveals you.

Nobody should benefit from deluding himself with a sophism, nor is it a
real benefit.

>
>> Nobody cares, nor should they.
>>
>> Your argument is, has always been, and always will be, baloney.
>
> Do you think it would be ethically superior if people were to keep livestock
> in a comatose condition for their entire lives so they never experience
> consciousness and life as a livestock animal?

It would be better for an animal to be comatose than to live a life of
suffering and/or deprivation.

>
>>> But for people who are more open
>>> than you the lives of the animals that they would be contributing to become an
>>> issue to take into consideration. It's something to think about when deciding
>>> how you want to proceed, and the fact that you're opposed to people considering
>>> the animals' lives is one of the main ways you reveal yourself.
>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't be implying brownie
>>>>>> points for eating McNuggets by any chance, hmmmm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some animals experience lives of positive value to them because humans raise
>>>>> chickens for food.
>>>>
>>>> No they don't, they experience lives of positive value because of the
>>>> way they are raised.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To an eliminationist that's not a good thing, but to people
>>>>> who can appreciate decent lives for livestock it's good that they experience
>>>>> decent lives. You people don't like it because all a veg*n diet contributes to
>>>>> is death for wildlife, but it does NOTHING for livestock animals as a their
>>>>> consumer's diets do.
>>>>
>>>> A vegan diet has little or nothing to do with the life of a livestock
>>>> animal, positively or negatively. Stop trying to claim that that is a
>>>> valid criticism, it isn't.
>>>
>>> It's just a fact that everyone should keep in mind. I've seen people try to
>>> estimate the number of farm animals they've "saved" by being veg*n, when the
>>> fact is that veg*nism does nothing to save any farm animals. People need to keep
>>> that in mind while making their decisions, and also even after they have been
>>> made...ALWAYS!!!...

An animal not existing if it's life would be suffering is a good thing.
You agree with that. Not eating battery raised eggs is an example. The
difference is in our personal opinions about what constitutes a life
worth living.

[Rupert]

On Aug 19, 2:57 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:23:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:46:07 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:06:35 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199549265/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d6_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1ZZTKSF92MZJV51HN77Q&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846

[George Plimpton]

On 8/18/2012 5:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote:

>>>> It's just a fact that everyone should keep in mind. I've seen
>>>> people try to
>>>> estimate the number of farm animals they've "saved" by being veg*n,
>>>> when the
>>>> fact is that veg*nism does nothing to save any farm animals. People
>>>> need to keep
>>>> that in mind while making their decisions, and also even after they
>>>> have been
>>>> made...ALWAYS!!!...
>
> An animal not existing if it's life would be suffering is a good thing.
> You agree with that.

He doesn't. He feigns agreement, but he has already said he doesn't
care if animals suffer or not; he would go right on eating them.

[Dutch]

When I say he believes it I mean it's one of his "believies".

[George Plimpton]

On 8/20/2012 12:16 AM, Dutch wrote:
> George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/18/2012 5:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's just a fact that everyone should keep in mind. I've seen
>>>>>> people try to
>>>>>> estimate the number of farm animals they've "saved" by being veg*n,
>>>>>> when the
>>>>>> fact is that veg*nism does nothing to save any farm animals. People
>>>>>> need to keep
>>>>>> that in mind while making their decisions, and also even after they
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> made...ALWAYS!!!...
>>>

>>> An animal not existing if its life would be suffering is a good thing.

>>> You agree with that.
>>
>> He doesn't. He feigns agreement, but he has already said he doesn't
>> care if animals suffer or not; he would go right on eating them.
>
> When I say he believes it I mean it's one of his "believies".

Okay; got it. I recall you mentioned "believies" before, and this
instance absolutely is one of Fuckwit's.

[dh]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:57:15 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:23:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.
>>>>
>>>> It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious
>>>> consumer of animal products and being a veg*n. You chose to become veg*n and
>>>> later to start lying about it, but thinking about being a consumer and the
>>>> animals lives you would be contributing to made you feel "dirty" so you have
>>>> remained whatever sort of veg*n you STILL are.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> Some people would like to continue to eat meat because they enjoy it, but
>> they feel that a veg*n diet is most ethical. What I suggest offers them an
>> option: to contribute to decent lives for future livestock instead of not
>> contributing to anything for livestock. THAT is what eliminationists and ONLY
>> eliminationists would hate most of all, of course.
>
>You offer a false choice,

What different choice do you suggest?

>based on a sophism.
>
>>> If a person wants to be a vegan they are not going to
>>> change their mind because it means some future animal that would have
>>> existed won't get to experience life.
>>
>> Someone like yourself who has always hated the taste of meat and the thought
>> of eating an animal etc can't be expected to change, no. But people who LIKE the
>> taste of meat don't have that problem and THEY are the ones who could benefit
>> from what I'm pointing out, not people who have always hated meat. LOL...the
>> fact that you automatically saw it the way you did is something else that
>> reveals you.
>
>Nobody should benefit from deluding himself

You are convincing me more and more that you hate the taste of meat and the
idea of putting any animal product in your mouth. You reveal yourself more and
more, over and over....

>with a sophism, nor is it a
>real benefit.
>
>>
>>> Nobody cares, nor should they.
>>>
>>> Your argument is, has always been, and always will be, baloney.
>>
>> Do you think it would be ethically superior if people were to keep livestock
>> in a comatose condition for their entire lives so they never experience
>> consciousness and life as a livestock animal?
>
>It would be better for an animal to be comatose than to live a life of
>suffering and/or deprivation.

How about to live a decent life of positive value? Of course you must agree
with the Goober and with all other eliminationists that:

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

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

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

So far I don't agree with you people about it.

For at least a decade you've been unable to appreciate the lives of any
creatures regardless of type of being and/or the quality of the beings' life. If
you've finally learned to appreciate life for ANY being(s) then say what it
is/they are and then maybe we can move on from there.

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:57:15 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:23:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.
>>>>>
>>>>> It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious
>>>>> consumer of animal products and being a veg*n. You chose to become veg*n and
>>>>> later to start lying about it, but thinking about being a consumer and the
>>>>> animals lives you would be contributing to made you feel "dirty" so you have
>>>>> remained whatever sort of veg*n you STILL are.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>> Some people would like to continue to eat meat because they enjoy it, but
>>> they feel that a veg*n diet is most ethical. What I suggest offers them an
>>> option: to contribute to decent lives for future livestock instead of not
>>> contributing to anything for livestock. THAT is what eliminationists and ONLY
>>> eliminationists would hate most of all, of course.
>>
>> You offer a false choice,
>
> What different choice do you suggest?

You've been told a hundred times, it is a compound choice. The
alternatives are to consume products derived from livestock or not, and
*IF* and only if you choose to do so, then you can choose options that
favor animal welfare, such as so called "freedom" options. If you don't
consume animal products, then you are unconnected to the raising of
livestock and no moral calculation with regard to livestock is
applicable. If you do, then you run the risk of condoning the animal
suffering common in livestock raising.

It's very simple, you choose to not grasp it for your own stupid and
perverted reasons.

>
>> based on a sophism.
>>
>>>> If a person wants to be a vegan they are not going to
>>>> change their mind because it means some future animal that would have
>>>> existed won't get to experience life.
>>>
>>> Someone like yourself who has always hated the taste of meat and the thought
>>> of eating an animal etc can't be expected to change, no. But people who LIKE the
>>> taste of meat don't have that problem and THEY are the ones who could benefit
>>> from what I'm pointing out, not people who have always hated meat. LOL...the
>>> fact that you automatically saw it the way you did is something else that
>>> reveals you.
>>
>> Nobody should benefit from deluding himself
>
> You are convincing me more and more that you hate the taste of meat and the
> idea of putting any animal product in your mouth. You reveal yourself more and
> more, over and over....

I love the taste of meat, a nice medium-rare steak is to drool over.

>> with a sophism, nor is it a
>> real benefit.
>>
>>>
>>>> Nobody cares, nor should they.
>>>>
>>>> Your argument is, has always been, and always will be, baloney.
>>>
>>> Do you think it would be ethically superior if people were to keep livestock
>>> in a comatose condition for their entire lives so they never experience
>>> consciousness and life as a livestock animal?
>>
>> It would be better for an animal to be comatose than to live a life of
>> suffering and/or deprivation.
>
> How about to live a decent life of positive value?

That's better than a life of suffering.

Of course you must agree
> with the Goober and with all other eliminationists that:

You can't believe we're ARAs, that's not credible. 0%

>
> "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

Those are AR ideas as he explained them to you, not his ideas. You know
this of course, you're just trolling.

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

That's true, life is not better than no life, that's just rhetoric.

> So far I don't agree with you people about it.

Yes, but you're a moron.

I appreciate decent lives for livestock animals, greatly, it is much,
much better than lives of pain and suffering. What it is not is better
than no life, because that is an invalid comparison. An animal can't
have no life, there's no such thing. This is the essence of the
existential Catch that has you so boggled that despite spending over a
decade having it explained to you, you still don't get it.

[Tim]

dh@. ... nice to finally hear from you... i assume that means david
harrison...

[Dutch]

Tim wrote:
> dh@. ... nice to finally hear from you... i assume that means david
> harrison...
>

Was it dipshit dumbfuck that clued you in?

[dh]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:50:55 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:57:15 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:23:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:32:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering "that they get to experience life" doesn't help them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It helps a person who is making the choice between being a conscientious
>>>>>> consumer of animal products and being a veg*n. You chose to become veg*n and
>>>>>> later to start lying about it, but thinking about being a consumer and the
>>>>>> animals lives you would be contributing to made you feel "dirty" so you have
>>>>>> remained whatever sort of veg*n you STILL are.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> Some people would like to continue to eat meat because they enjoy it, but
>>>> they feel that a veg*n diet is most ethical. What I suggest offers them an
>>>> option: to contribute to decent lives for future livestock instead of not
>>>> contributing to anything for livestock. THAT is what eliminationists and ONLY
>>>> eliminationists would hate most of all, of course.
>>>
>>> You offer a false choice,
>>
>> What different choice do you suggest?
>
>Yo

. . .

You suggested no different choices. I again challenge you to try.
. . .

>>>> Do you think it would be ethically superior if people were to keep livestock
>>>> in a comatose condition for their entire lives so they never experience
>>>> consciousness and life as a livestock animal?
>>>
>>> It would be better for an animal to be comatose than to live a life of
>>> suffering and/or deprivation.
>>
>> How about to live a decent life of positive value?
>
>That's better than a life of suffering.

But you still believe they would be better off in a coma, right?

> Of course you must agree
>> with the Goober and with all other eliminationists that:
>
>You can't believe we're ARAs, that's not credible. 0%
>
>>
>> "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
>
>
>Those are AR ideas as he explained them to you, not his ideas. You know
>this of course, you're just trolling.

We know he agrees with the first one since he doesn't believe they benefit
and has made the claim countless times. If you think he disagrees with himself
about the second one, then try explaining how you think he does.

>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>> its quality of live" - Goo
>
>That's true, life is not better than no life, that's just rhetoric.

So you agree with both the Goober and "them".
. . .

>> For at least a decade you've been unable to appreciate the lives of any
>> creatures regardless of type of being and/or the quality of the beings' life. If
>> you've finally learned to appreciate life for ANY being(s) then say what it
>> is/they are and then maybe we can move on from there.
>
>I appreciate decent lives for livestock animals, greatly, it is much,
>much better than lives of pain and suffering. What it is not is better
>than no life, because that is an invalid comparison. An animal can't
>have no life, there's no such thing. This is the essence of the
>existential Catch that has you so boggled that despite spending over a
>decade having it explained to you, you still don't get it.

Your supposed explanation as to why we don't benefit from our existence is
completely based on some mysterious thing associated with the pre-existent
state. You have never been able to say exactly what it is about pre-existence
much less what whatever it is supposedly does to prevent us from benefitting
from our existence now. Nothing appears to prevent us, and you can't even
pretend anything is preventing us. All you can do is claim that something is,
yet you have no idea what or how.

[dh]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Tim <8.tim....@gmail.com> wrote:

>dh@. ... nice to finally hear from you... i assume that means david
>harrison...

Finally hear from me?

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:

> Your supposed explanation as to why we don't benefit from our existence is
> completely based on some mysterious thing associated with the pre-existent
> state.

That's false, in fact it is the exact opposite. First of all, the issue
is not whether or not we "benefit from our existence", which is nothing
more than a rather clumsy rhetorical phrase meaning to enjoy life.

The actual question is whether or not we benefit by *coming into
existence*. The answer, based on what we know to be true, is no, it is
not possible, because in order to benefit, or be harmed, an entity must
exist. And we exist, therefore we cannot come into existence.

Finally, and only to dispel the argument that someone might make that we
might have existed prior to life as we know and thus be able to benefit
by coming into this existence, even if such a state did exist, we have
no knowledge of it and therefore cannot say that our existence is an
improvement.

I can't make it any clearer than that, if you choose to keep on totally
misunderstanding the whole issue then there's nothing more I can say,
except poor you.

[dh]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:11:50 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> Your supposed explanation as to why we don't benefit from our existence is
>> completely based on some mysterious thing associated with the pre-existent
>> state.

. . .

>the issue
>is not whether or not we "benefit from our existence"

It sure is, and you can't provide a single reason to believe that none of us
do. You can't provide any reason to believe that no livestock do either,
including those which are raised to be eaten.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On Aug 25, 7:11 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:


> exist. And we exist, therefore we cannot come into existence.

hahaha... i see. hm. then maybe, according to this argument, we missed
the mark when we said something created from nothing. we should back
track here and re-assert that nothing was the first created thing.
then came something.

[i2i]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:dneq389bscao0gkju...@4ax.com...

they should have raised you to be eaten

[Wet Paper Bag]

On Aug 29, 12:09 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:dneq389bscao0gkju...@4ax.com...

lol... not a big fan of the Willie Wonka World is he. "Its all food.
Eat anything you want. It is all delicious."

[Dutch]

Wet Paper Bag wrote:
> On Aug 25, 7:11 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>> exist. And we exist, therefore we cannot come into existence.
>
> hahaha... i see. hm.

I don't think you do.

> then maybe, according to this argument, we missed
> the mark when we said something created from nothing. we should back
> track here and re-assert that nothing was the first created thing.
> then came something.

I fear that you have gone off on a tangent, allow me to rephrase. No
unique existing entity, such as you, can come into existence, that can
only happen once, and it has already happened.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On Aug 29, 2:06 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Wet Paper Bag wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 7:11 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> exist. And we exist, therefore we cannot come into existence.
>
> > hahaha... i see. hm.
>
> I don't think you do.

it's ok. anyone that believes minds are changed is only deluding
themselves. i can not convince you of what i see since the very act of
saying i see forces you off the original line of thought creating a
whole new trajectory to the point you insist on making. thus, we must
remove the point itself in order for you to see something new.

> > then maybe, according to this argument, we missed
> > the mark when we said something created from nothing. we should back
> > track here and re-assert that nothing was the first created thing.
> > then came something.
>
> I fear that you have gone off on a tangent, allow me to rephrase. No
> unique existing entity, such as you, can come into existence, that can
> only happen once, and it has already happened.

so let's examine this, which by the very nature of the appearance of
an objection has forced you to provide a more detailed and better
defined idea.

right off the start you are suggesting there is a unique existing
entity. the very word unique suggests only one that in and of itself
is separate and different from any other of its kind.

this suggests that, since you are contained within a system of
creation you are a part of the greater body and not the body as a
whole.

thus, you are not a unique creation rather a part inside a unique
creation that in and of itself does have a beginning since your
existence is not synonymous or equal to the point of origin of the
singular unique creation.

this is why i suggested nothing as being a creation with a beginning.
then something created within this nothing that has an end. but the
nothing itself, being that all things have their season, rising and
falling, remains unique.

continuing, you state that it has already happened which again raises
some skepticism since we see ourselves as becoming not having already
been.

since we do not know the original conditions of creation, although we
can grasp nothing as a unique creation and now we see the creation of
something, we can not determine what the final result will be and
thus, between these two points where we are, we are nothing more than
a (possibly) eternal but certainly an internally becoming.