Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No consideration for animals' lives
10 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
May 3, 2012, 1:48:02 PM5/3/12
to
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 13 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.
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 13 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.
Mr.Smartypants
May 3, 2012, 2:14:20 PM5/3/12
to
think are being raised....somewhere.
Rupert
May 4, 2012, 1:06:09 PM5/4/12
to
i2i
May 4, 2012, 1:24:51 PM5/4/12
to
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2...@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
to do with being short and fat ?
Rupert
May 4, 2012, 1:28:44 PM5/4/12
to
On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
i2i
May 4, 2012, 1:43:52 PM5/4/12
to
news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5...@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
halleluja ! praze da lawd !
Mr.Smartypants
May 4, 2012, 3:53:35 PM5/4/12
to
i2i
May 5, 2012, 12:33:03 AM5/5/12
to
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a130881f-7d59-4f12...@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Mr.Smartypants
May 5, 2012, 1:35:59 AM5/5/12
to
On May 4, 10:33 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
the lard might not think so but the lord might.
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
i2i
May 5, 2012, 2:29:41 AM5/5/12
to
news:5c7800aa-5946-4244...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
thinking lard ? thinking lord?
i've never seen them together
in the same place at the same
time and those big thick black
glasses don't fool me one bit.
i've never seen them together
in the same place at the same
time and those big thick black
glasses don't fool me one bit.
dh
May 6, 2012, 4:59:11 PM5/6/12
to
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 11:48 am, Goo wrote:
>> The lying cracker
. . .
value very frequently it's proof that Goo is blatantly lying when he lies that I
don't take quality into consideration. So the Gooberdoodle is going out of his
way to tell blatant lies about me, which in itself is another way in which he
outstupids himself. Making his own self-outstupidifications even more stupid is
the fact that Goo himself claims to be in the same position he dishonestly lies
that I'm in. Goo says he eats meat:
"I eat meat." - Goo
Yet also makes it very clear he believes no farm animals benefit regardless of
the quality of their lives so quality of life means nothing to 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
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
Goo tells us that even though he wants the products, quality of life for the
animals means nothing to him.
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 11:48 am, Goo wrote:
>> The lying cracker
. . .
>All you care about are the choice cuts from the EXTRA livestock you
>think are being raised....somewhere.
Since I refer to the distinction between lives of positive and negative
>think are being raised....somewhere.
value very frequently it's proof that Goo is blatantly lying when he lies that I
don't take quality into consideration. So the Gooberdoodle is going out of his
way to tell blatant lies about me, which in itself is another way in which he
outstupids himself. Making his own self-outstupidifications even more stupid is
the fact that Goo himself claims to be in the same position he dishonestly lies
that I'm in. Goo says he eats meat:
"I eat meat." - Goo
Yet also makes it very clear he believes no farm animals benefit regardless of
the quality of their lives so quality of life means nothing to 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
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
Goo tells us that even though he wants the products, quality of life for the
animals means nothing to him.
dh
May 6, 2012, 4:59:37 PM5/6/12
to
On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:28:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2...@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
thread is a perfect example. The fact that I refer to the difference between
lives of positive and negative value is proof that I consider quality of life.
wrote:
>On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2...@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 4, 3:48 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> > The lying cracker
>>
>>
>> > The lying cracker
>>
>> so just what the hell does this have
>> to do with being short and fat ?
>
>Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
>completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
I consider Goo to be the most dishonest person I've ever encountered. This
>> to do with being short and fat ?
>
>Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
>completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
thread is a perfect example. The fact that I refer to the difference between
lives of positive and negative value is proof that I consider quality of life.
dh
May 6, 2012, 5:02:22 PM5/6/12
to
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:24:51 -0400, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>so just what the hell does this have
>to do with being short and fat ?
The whole thing is about whether or not it's ethical to raise animals for
>so just what the hell does this have
>to do with being short and fat ?
food. Eliminationists who for years have been dishonestly abusing the term
"animal rights" which is a gross misnomer in regards to their objective toward
all domestic animals, want people only to consider the deaths of livestock and
the fact that many of them appear to have lives which are of negative value to
the animals themselves. I point out that many livestock animals have decent
lives of positive value and that that aspect should be given as much or more
consideration than their deaths. People like Goo and his boy "Dutch" have been
opposing the suggestion because and only because considering that aspect works
against the elimination objective. Goo btw is the person who is now posting and
George Plimpton, but Goo has dishonestly pretended to be all of the following
"different" people and more:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<pricker...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notg...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.s...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb2...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra
S. Maizlich
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
George Plimpton
Chrissy Degeer
Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others
Referring to him as Goo instead of whoever he happens to be pretending to be at
the moment is a way of not rewarding him for his countless dishonesties, and
also as a way of referring to a single person who has pretended to be many.
Rupert
May 13, 2012, 10:25:21 AM5/13/12
to
> Abner Hale
> Roger Whitaker
> Fucktard
> Apoo
> Ted Bell
> notgen...@yahoo.com
> Roger Whitaker
> Fucktard
> Apoo
> Ted Bell
> Jay Santos
> mortons.steakho...@chicago.not
> Rudy Canoza
> Trappist
> sb29...@yahoo.com
> Leif Erikson
> S. Maizlich
> SlipperySlope
> Eden
> Sylvia Stevens
> chico chupacabra
> S. Maizlich
> T. Howard Pines, Jr.
> George Plimpton
> Chrissy Degeer
> Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
> Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others
>
> Referring to him as Goo instead of whoever he happens to be pretending to be at
> the moment is a way of not rewarding him for his countless dishonesties, and
> also as a way of referring to a single person who has pretended to be many.
Can you give us some examples of livestock who lead "decent lives of
> S. Maizlich
> SlipperySlope
> Eden
> Sylvia Stevens
> chico chupacabra
> S. Maizlich
> T. Howard Pines, Jr.
> George Plimpton
> Chrissy Degeer
> Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
> Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others
>
> Referring to him as Goo instead of whoever he happens to be pretending to be at
> the moment is a way of not rewarding him for his countless dishonesties, and
> also as a way of referring to a single person who has pretended to be many.
positive value"?
dh
May 16, 2012, 4:20:44 PM5/16/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I can give you examples of some who sure appear to, like:
http://www.agrabilityproject.org/images/clip_image002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearofthegoat/images/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2361808892_b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/leofoo/windows/images/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/images/goose%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02Jz3CK90Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/June-2007-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sarahpayton/Grass-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/bentleycellars.com/_uimages/GoldSheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/20050415_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERIMAGES/more%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve/_resources/sheep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.com/graphics/allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploads/images/Case_Studies/EE/Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/images/blog/bellsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/sheep_on_bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44105000/jpg/_44105757_bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/kitchen/2008_08_15-MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/images/upload/fullsize/2008-3-25-goats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi36/images/chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/KBF%20broilers%20hoop%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/countryliving/images/Geese-GARDEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/operators/logos/18059.jpg
Can you recognise and accept any of them? Or are you unable to accept a single
one?
wrote:
http://www.agrabilityproject.org/images/clip_image002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearofthegoat/images/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2361808892_b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/leofoo/windows/images/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/images/goose%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02Jz3CK90Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/June-2007-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sarahpayton/Grass-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/bentleycellars.com/_uimages/GoldSheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/20050415_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERIMAGES/more%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve/_resources/sheep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.com/graphics/allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploads/images/Case_Studies/EE/Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/images/blog/bellsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/sheep_on_bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44105000/jpg/_44105757_bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/kitchen/2008_08_15-MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/images/upload/fullsize/2008-3-25-goats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi36/images/chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/KBF%20broilers%20hoop%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/countryliving/images/Geese-GARDEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/operators/logos/18059.jpg
Can you recognise and accept any of them? Or are you unable to accept a single
one?
Rupert
May 17, 2012, 4:47:34 AM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 10:20 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Looking at this one
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
what leads you to the judgement that these hens are living good lives?
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
what leads you to the judgement that these hens are living good lives?
George Plimpton
May 17, 2012, 10:55:59 AM5/17/12
to
lives of possitive [sic] value." That's all it ever meant.
i2i
May 17, 2012, 12:10:55 PM5/17/12
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:As-dndK3oa8cjCjS...@giganews.com...
since hens can be considered
to be short and fat at least in an
eerie quantum holographic maze
echo pathway's kinda way......
possum
May 17, 2012, 4:21:01 PM5/17/12
to
"i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:zcWdnRorfPu8vijS...@earthlink.com...
watched (on this thread). what's that all
about?
james g. keegan jr.
May 19, 2012, 7:35:37 PM5/19/12
to
i2i
May 20, 2012, 1:24:59 AM5/20/12
to
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gma�l.com> wrote in message
news:fK-dnTkQwrXXsyXS...@giganews.com...
now all it does is tick.
dh
May 21, 2012, 8:10:52 PM5/21/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 01:47:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
They're in a cage free house and their feathers look good. That means
they're getting a decent diet so they're not pecking each other's feathers. They
sure do appear to be living lives of positive value to them, even though that
particular life wouldn't necessarily be "good" to a person, or a fish, or a
raccoon..... This is a test to see if YOU can appreciate any though, not me. So
can you or can't you appreciate it for any of the examples at all?
wrote:
they're getting a decent diet so they're not pecking each other's feathers. They
sure do appear to be living lives of positive value to them, even though that
particular life wouldn't necessarily be "good" to a person, or a fish, or a
raccoon..... This is a test to see if YOU can appreciate any though, not me. So
can you or can't you appreciate it for any of the examples at all?
dh
May 21, 2012, 8:11:00 PM5/21/12
to
battery cages probably don't, imo. On the other hand I believe most in cage free
environments do have decent lives of positive value *to them*. That includes the
parents of caged hens since they are kept in cage free environments.
Rupert
May 22, 2012, 12:19:13 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 2:10 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 01:47:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
In general, I think it's pretty difficult to make a judgement about
whether or not an animal is living a good life on the basis of just
one photograph. You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 01:47:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
whether or not an animal is living a good life on the basis of just
one photograph. You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
halfawake
May 22, 2012, 11:24:13 PM5/22/12
to
i2i wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmaīl.com> wrote in message
"A man with a nervous wrist may develop a knee-jerk reaction."
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmaīl.com> wrote in message
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
i2i
May 23, 2012, 12:26:52 AM5/23/12
to
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jphl8t$tbr$2...@dont-email.me...
dh
May 23, 2012, 2:59:12 PM5/23/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
So far you've indicated that you're not capable of recognising what appears
to be a life of positive value or a "good" life for a single thing on the
planet. You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
actually are capable.
>You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
Doing well would be having a good life. Also remember I've pointed out that
the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
probably way too advanced for your particular position. How could you appreciate
value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
wrote:
to be a life of positive value or a "good" life for a single thing on the
planet. You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
actually are capable.
>You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
probably way too advanced for your particular position. How could you appreciate
value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
George Plimpton
May 23, 2012, 3:06:44 PM5/23/12
to
>> You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>> is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>
> Doing well would be having a good life.
well" or not, just so long as you get to eat them.
Rupert
May 26, 2012, 1:25:30 PM5/26/12
to
On May 23, 8:59 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Actually, that's not true.
> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
> actually are capable.
>
> >You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
> >is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>
> Doing well would be having a good life.
If you were doing well in all relevant respects, yes.
> Also remember I've pointed out that
> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
God, you're a patronising imbecile.
> How could you appreciate
> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
case?
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
> actually are capable.
>
> >You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
> >is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>
> Doing well would be having a good life.
> Also remember I've pointed out that
> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
> How could you appreciate
> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
case?
dh
May 29, 2012, 7:16:49 PM5/29/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:25:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It's certainly true from my pov, since I've never known you to provide a
single example of a creature you believe has a "good" life.
>> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
>> actually are capable.
>>
>> >You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>> >is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>>
>> Doing well would be having a good life.
>
>If you were doing well in all relevant respects, yes.
Not necessarily in all. You really don't have a realistic interpretation of
this. Here's one example for you: Some people who are blind still feel that they
have a life of positive value to them. That doesn't mean they think it's "good",
but that it still has positive value to them even though it's not. Some of them
no doubt feel they have a "good" life, but there are also undoubtedly others who
though they don't feel it's "good" it's still of positive enough value to them
that they don't want to die right away.
>> Also remember I've pointed out that
>> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
>> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
>
>God, you're a patronising imbecile.
I pointed out that since you can't appreciate "good" lives for any
creatures, the detail that that value can and does change is probably too much
for your extremely limited below sixth grade level ability to comprehend. You
show that you have no appreciation at all, and extremely little if any
comprehension regarding this aspect of life.
>> How could you appreciate
>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>
>And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>case?
Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
enjoyable to the birds. The same is true for everything else, as I have
understood since at the very latest my sixth year of grade school.
wrote:
single example of a creature you believe has a "good" life.
>> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
>> actually are capable.
>>
>> >You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>> >is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>>
>> Doing well would be having a good life.
>
>If you were doing well in all relevant respects, yes.
this. Here's one example for you: Some people who are blind still feel that they
have a life of positive value to them. That doesn't mean they think it's "good",
but that it still has positive value to them even though it's not. Some of them
no doubt feel they have a "good" life, but there are also undoubtedly others who
though they don't feel it's "good" it's still of positive enough value to them
that they don't want to die right away.
>> Also remember I've pointed out that
>> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
>> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
>
>God, you're a patronising imbecile.
creatures, the detail that that value can and does change is probably too much
for your extremely limited below sixth grade level ability to comprehend. You
show that you have no appreciation at all, and extremely little if any
comprehension regarding this aspect of life.
>> How could you appreciate
>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>
>And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>case?
enjoyable to the birds. The same is true for everything else, as I have
understood since at the very latest my sixth year of grade school.
George Plimpton
May 29, 2012, 8:43:47 PM5/29/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (raising animals for blood
sports), lied:
It's not true - not from any "pov", you fucking clown.
>>> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
>>> actually are capable.
>>>
>>>> You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>>>> is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>>>
>>> Doing well would be having a good life.
>>
>> If you were doing well in all relevant respects, yes.
>
> Not necessarily in all. You really don't have a realistic interpretation of
You, you illiterate fucking clown, don't tell other people what is
"realistic". You are completely unhinged from reality.
>>> Also remember I've pointed out that
>>> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
>>> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
>>
>> God, you're a patronising imbecile.
>
> I pointed out that
No. You do not "point out" anything, ever.
>>> How could you appreciate
>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>
>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>> case?
>
> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
> enjoyable to the birds.
You have no clue, but in fact you don't even care. All you care about
is that they exist.
sports), lied:
>>> You act like you think you can, but have given no indication you
>>> actually are capable.
>>>
>>>> You could sometimes make the judgement that the animal
>>>> is doing well in certain respects (and maybe not so well in others).
>>>
>>> Doing well would be having a good life.
>>
>> If you were doing well in all relevant respects, yes.
>
> Not necessarily in all. You really don't have a realistic interpretation of
"realistic". You are completely unhinged from reality.
>>> Also remember I've pointed out that
>>> the value can and often does change throughout the beings' lives, but that's
>>> probably way too advanced for your particular position.
>>
>> God, you're a patronising imbecile.
>
> I pointed out that
>>> How could you appreciate
>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>
>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>> case?
>
> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
> enjoyable to the birds.
is that they exist.
dh
May 31, 2012, 6:03:41 PM5/31/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:43:47 -0700, Goo tried to help his boy:
>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>
>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>
>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>> case?
>>
>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>> enjoyable to the birds.
>
>You have no clue
LOL!!! YOU have no clue, Goo:
>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>
>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>> case?
>>
>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>> enjoyable to the birds.
>
>You have no clue
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 7:39:41 PM5/31/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon (animal abuse), lied:
>>
>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>
>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>> case?
>>>
>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>
You have no clue, Goo.
>>
>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>
>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>> case?
>>>
>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>
>> You have no clue, but in fact you don't even care. All you care about is that they exist.
>
> LOL!!! YOU
>
You have no clue, Goo.
dh
Jun 6, 2012, 3:35:50 PM6/6/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:39:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:43:47 -0700, Goo tried to help his boy:
>>
>>>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>>>
YOU believe the wrongness cancels out any good REGARDLESS of quality of life
Goob. Did you forget?
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - 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
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:43:47 -0700, Goo tried to help his boy:
>>
>>>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>>>
>>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>> case?
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>
>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>> case?
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>
>>>You have no clue
>>
>> LOL!!! YOU have no clue, Goo:
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>
>You
>>
>> LOL!!! YOU have no clue, Goo:
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>
YOU believe the wrongness cancels out any good REGARDLESS of quality of life
Goob. Did you forget?
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - 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
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
George Plimpton
Jun 6, 2012, 4:34:08 PM6/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, who has *never* posed a challenge to anyone -
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>> case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - George Plimpton
I was explaining what "aras" believe, Goo. You know that.
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton
You do, Goo - that's what you think. You're wrong, of course - if there
is anything wrong with killing animals to consume them, and I of course
don't think there is, there is no "mitigation" of it due to their having
"got to experience life." That's simply a fact, Goo - you know it is.
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>> case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>
>>>> You have no clue, but in fact you don't even care. All you care about is that they exist.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! YOU
>>
>> You have no clue, Goo.
>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! YOU
>>
>> You have no clue, Goo.
>
> YOU believe the wrongness cancels out any good REGARDLESS of quality of life
I don't. "ARAs" believe that. I'm not an "ara", Goo - you know that.
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
I was explaining what "aras" believe, Goo. You know that.
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
You do, Goo - that's what you think. You're wrong, of course - if there
is anything wrong with killing animals to consume them, and I of course
don't think there is, there is no "mitigation" of it due to their having
"got to experience life." That's simply a fact, Goo - you know it is.
dh
Jun 7, 2012, 1:21:31 PM6/7/12
to
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:34:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:35:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:39:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:43:47 -0700, Goo tried to help his boy:
>>>>
>>>>>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>>>>>
yourself about and why Goo? If/When you can't say what you want people to think
you disagree with yourself about, then we'll know you agree with yourself about
all of it.
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:35:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:39:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:43:47 -0700, Goo tried to help his boy:
>>>>
>>>>>dh challenged Goo's boy Rupert:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have no clue
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! YOU have no clue, Goo:
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>You
>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! YOU have no clue, Goo:
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>You
>>
>> YOU believe the wrongness cancels out any good REGARDLESS of quality of life
>>Goob. Did you forget?
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
>>
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - 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
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>
>>
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - 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
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>
>I was explaining what "aras" believe
Which of your above quotes do you want people to think you disagree with
yourself about and why Goo? If/When you can't say what you want people to think
you disagree with yourself about, then we'll know you agree with yourself about
all of it.
George Plimpton
Jun 7, 2012, 5:20:35 PM6/7/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison, who has *never* posed a challenge to anyone -
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:
>>>>>>
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How could you appreciate
>>>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no clue, Goo
>>>>>>>>> value change when you can't appreciate one of the values at all? When those hens
>>>>>>>>> living good lives get stuffed in the crate to head off for slaughter, the value
>>>>>>>>> changes immediately. So hopefully the previous couple of years makes up for it.
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully the 8+/- weeks that broilers get makes up for it too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what would be the criteria to determine whether or not this is the
>>>>>>>> case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not the experiences the birds had were overall positive and
>>>>>>> enjoyable to the birds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! YOU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no clue, Goo
>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! YOU
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no clue, Goo
>>>
>>> YOU believe the wrongness cancels out any good REGARDLESS of quality of life
>>
>>
>> I don't. "ARAs" believe that. I'm not an "ara", Goo - you know that.
>
>
> Which of your above quotes
I don't believe killing animals is wrong, Goo. You know that. Goo.
0 new messages