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?

[Rupert]

You were being boring on that occasion. On other occasions you are
mildly amusing.

[Rupert]

On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>
> 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).

You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.

[George Plimpton]

Nice try. You just fucked yourself up the ass - again.

[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.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 11:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>>
>> 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).
>
> You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.

That's *Salt's* proviso, you fuckwit. Fuckwit Harrison doesn't have
any. I have proved that Fuckwit wants livestock animals to live
*irrespective* of their quality of life, because he wants to imagine
that "life itself is a benefit."

Fuckwit has no consideration for animals' lives, meaning the quality of
the lives they actually live. All he wants is for them to exist, so he
can kill and consume them. You know this.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Goo, why don't you correct Rupert's post before he posts it so when he
does post it everything will jibe with your point of view and you
won't have a fit over it.

You did claim that ability so why not use it.

[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.

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>>
>> 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).
>
> You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.

*He* doesn't actually believe in the proviso in any meaningful way,
many. many quotes prove that, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt to
estop any nonsense about AW since it doesn't affect the fundamental
fallacy in the LoL.

The proviso isn't the issue, the issue is that genuine "consideration"
for livestock animals applies to the welfare of animals that exist or
will exist. There is no meaning in this context to consideration that
they exist or not, as he contends. You and I could have a debate about
whether or not livestock *should* exist and as an advocate of the pro
side I would not use the argument that you're not "supporting lives of
positive value" as he does, that is a hollow sophism.

I can't believe that someone as smart as you seems to have missed the
huge hole in his arguments.

[Rupert]

That's an interesting perception that you have.

[Rupert]

On 3 Aug., 22:35, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it. Why does it
follow that he can't mean "behaving in ways that result in better
conditions for livestock animals"?

[Rupert]

Where did you get the idea that I missed it?

[Rupert]

On 3 Aug., 21:49, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> 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.
>

Your hostility and your statement strike me as irrational.

[Rupert]

On 3 Aug., 21:51, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 11:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>
> >> 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).
>
> > You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.
>
> That's *Salt's* proviso, you fuckwit.  Fuckwit Harrison doesn't have
> any.  I have proved that Fuckwit wants livestock animals to live
> *irrespective* of their quality of life, because he wants to imagine
> that "life itself is a benefit."
>

You proved that in this thread, did you?

[George Plimpton]

That's a bizarre pastime you have.

[George Plimpton]

YOu're just trying to waste time.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/4/2012 1:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 21:51, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 11:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>>> You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.
>>
>> That's *Salt's* proviso, you fuckwit. Fuckwit Harrison doesn't have
>> any. I have proved that Fuckwit wants livestock animals to live
>> *irrespective* of their quality of life, because he wants to imagine
>> that "life itself is a benefit."
>>
>
> You proved that in this thread, did you?

No, in numerous others.

[Rupert]

What is?

[Rupert]

Too much to hope you'd be kind enough to tell us which ones.

[George Plimpton]

Fucking yourself of the ass, of course.

[George Plimpton]

You've seen them.

[Rupert]

I find your thought processes hard to fathom.

[George Plimpton]

>> Fucking yourself up the ass, of course.

>
> I find your thought processes hard to fathom.

I find your sexual proclivities not only hard to fathom but disgusting.

[Rupert]

As I say, this belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

[Rupert]

So you find the fantasies that you make up for yourself to be
disgusting.

[Rupert]

Is "FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs" one of them?

[George Plimpton]

No, no - your proclivities are what they are.

[George Plimpton]

What do you think?

[George Plimpton]

As I say, you are just trying to waste time.

[Rupert]

It really is hard to understand why you say such stupid things.

[George Plimpton]

It really is hard to understand why you give into and indulge such
disgusting proclivities.

[Rupert]

Why do you think that?

[Rupert]

It is really hard to understand why you dwell on your fantasies if you
find them disgusting.

[Rupert]

I think it probably is but it would be helpful if you could confirm
one way or the other.

[Mr.Smartypants]

As you get to know Gooberdoodle better you will see that he constantly
brings up the subject of other men's asses........pretending at the
same time that the images disgust him.

[George Plimpton]

<chuckle>

[George Plimpton]

It's what you do. It's all you do.

[George Plimpton]

Most things are hard for psychotics to understand.

[Mr.Smartypants]

When you post about other men's asses, do you consider that good use
of your "valuable" time?

[Dutch]

Rupert wrote:

> On 3 Aug., 22:35, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it.

You can take it the bank.

> Why does it
> follow that he can't mean "behaving in ways that result in better
> conditions for livestock animals"?

Because that is simply "AW" and there is virtually no disagreement among
any of the participants on this group that is a good and valid
objective. It's a little surprising that you have not picked up this.

[Rupert]

You have made a claim that you have proved something but you appear to
be unwilling to assist your correspondent in finding where the proof
is. It makes you wonder what is the point of claiming to have proved
it.

[Rupert]

I have picked up on it.

There might be agreement between Harrison and the other participants
of this group that it is a good thing to make conditions for livestock
animals better, but there might be disagreements with Harrison about
other things, such as whether or not it is a good thing to bring a
happy animal into existence.

[Rupert]

Do you consider yourself knowledgeable about psychosis?

[Rupert]

Why would it be a waste of time for Dutch to back up his claim about
what David Harrison thinks with a citation? Was it a waste of time for
him to make the claim in the first place? If the claim is worth
making, then why is it not worth backing up with a citation?

[Dutch]

One doesn't "bring a happy animal into existence", animals are made
"happy" by virtue of the treatment they receive after they are born.

In fact, we don't "bring animals into existence" at all, nature does
that, all we do is manipulate the living arrangements and breeding of
some animals to serve our purposes.

You are suffering from some of the same foggy thinking he is.

[Rupert]

Wrong.

[Rupert]

Speaking about "bringing happy animals into existence" does not evince
any foggy thinking. The phrase "bringing happy animals into existence"
obviously means "bringing it about that one more animal comes into
existence who lives a reasonably happy life."

[Dutch]

It's foggy thinking because it conflates two distinct and completely
separate acts allowing a shabby sophism to take place, namely The Logic
of the Larder. I always knew you were a sucker for sophistry.

"Bringing an animal into existence" as you call it, does not include or
imply happiness for that animal in any way, YOU of all people should
know that. It does not share the positive moral implications of causing
an animal to be happy and has no moral attribute of its own. Fuckwit
uses sophistry to make it appear that "bringing an animal into
existence" has a moral component, and you're buying it.

[George Plimpton]

Of course it does, when it is accompanied - as it always is with
Fuckwit's spew - by an insistence that "getting to experience life" is a
benefit. It *isn't* a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

<guffaw>

[George Plimpton]

He has done. You know he has. Your shrill, bitchy, virtually psychotic
insistence that he do it again is irrational.

[George Plimpton]

Somewhat.

[Mr.Smartypants]

why shouldn't he post it again, Goober? You keep posting the same
thing over and over and over ad infinitum.

[Rupert]

He has not. He made the claim in this thread. He has not backed it up
with a citation anywhere in this thread.

[Rupert]

Obviously I know that perfectly well and never suggested otherwise.

> It does not share the positive moral implications of causing
> an animal to be happy and has no moral attribute of its own. Fuckwit
> uses sophistry to make it appear that "bringing an animal into
> existence" has a moral component, and you're buying it.

Wrong.

[Rupert]

On what grounds? What have you read about it?

[Rupert]

It is totally irrational for you to think that I have somehow
committed myself to an acceptance of David Harrison's contentions. I
have done no such thing.

[Rupert]

It's good that you are able to find the humour in the situation.

[George Plimpton]

Yes.

[George Plimpton]

He has, of course.

[George Plimpton]

<chortle>

[Rupert]

You're amused?

[Rupert]

He's given a citation in this thread, has he?

[George Plimpton]

Countless other threads. Go read them. By demanding he re-cite
something here, you're just wasting time and trying to waste his.

[George Plimpton]

You bet.

[Rupert]

What amuses you?

[Rupert]

How would I find them?

[George Plimpton]

Politely ask Mr. Derek Nash to explain to you the use of Advanced Search
in Google Groups. Of course, he may charge a fee for that service.

[George Plimpton]

Your antics.

[Rupert]

I know how to use Advanced Search. Would you be kind enough to suggest
an appropriate search string?

[Rupert]

It amuses you when I ask you what you have read about psychosis?

[George Plimpton]

Select "Dutch" as the author. Then enter some of Fuckwit's well-known
expressions, e.g. "decent lives of positive value." See what comes up.

[George Plimpton]

Somewhat.

[Rupert]

And why would that be?

[George Plimpton]

Humor is beyond explanation.

[Mr.Smartypants]

as is your lack of intelligence.

[Dutch]

You repeated the fuckwitism "bringing a happy animal into existence" as
if it were a valid concept, it is not. It is the very sophism that The
Logic of the Larder is built on. In normal conversation you might be
able to get away with it, but in this context it is a critical error.

[Dutch]

Describe the equivocation in the subject line of this thread.

[dh]

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.

[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:

>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 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???

[dh]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:44:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 5 Aug., 05:43, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On 3 Aug., 22:35, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > Well, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it.
>>
>> You can take it the bank.
>>
>> > Why does it
>> > follow that he can't mean "behaving in ways that result in better
>> > conditions for livestock animals"?
>>
>> Because that is simply "AW" and there is virtually no disagreement among
>> any of the participants on this group that is a good and valid
>> objective. It's a little surprising that you have not picked up this.
>
>I have picked up on it.
>
>There might be agreement between Harrison and the other participants
>of this group that it is a good thing to make conditions for livestock
>animals better, but there might be disagreements with Harrison about
>other things, such as whether or not it is a good thing to bring a
>happy animal into existence.

The goos don't want anyone to take happy livestock in consideration because
and ONLY because doing so works against the elimination objective. One of the
ways those goobers reveal themselves is by the fact that they're opposed to
having appreciation for when AW successfully results in "happy" lives. No one
who is honestly in favor of AW, would be opposed to people appreciating when it
successfully results in what it was intended to produce, which of course is
lives of positive value, or "happy", lives for livestock.

[dh]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:51:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit wants livestock animals to live
>*irrespective* of their quality of life

[dh]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:54:59 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Rupert wrote:

>> You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.
>

>*He* doesn't actually believe in the proviso in any meaningful way

"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"

[dh]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 3 Aug., 22:54, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:

>> > On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>>
>> >> 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).

>>
>> > You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.
>>

>> *He* doesn't actually believe in the proviso in any meaningful way,
>> many. many quotes prove that, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt to
>> estop any nonsense about AW since it doesn't affect the fundamental
>> fallacy in the LoL.
>>
>> The proviso isn't the issue, the issue is that genuine "consideration"
>> for livestock animals applies to the welfare of animals that exist or
>> will exist. There is no meaning in this context to consideration that
>> they exist or not, as he contends. You and I could have a debate about
>> whether or not livestock *should* exist and as an advocate of the pro
>> side I would not use the argument that you're not "supporting lives of
>> positive value" as he does, that is a hollow sophism.
>>
>> I can't believe that someone as smart as you seems to have missed the
>> huge hole in his arguments.
>
>Where did you get the idea that I missed it?

The goos are less AW minded than you are. At least you claim to believe SOME
animals' lives are worth giving positive consideration because you feel the
quality is good enough. The goos don't believe any livestock lives should be
given positive consideration, meaning that they can't appreciate any distinction
REGARDLESS of quality:

"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing

them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives"" - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

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

[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

[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.

[George Plimpton]

On 8/3/2012 11:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 19:53, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> 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, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>>
>> 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).
>
> You've just admitted that there is a proviso, which Ball denies.

That's *Salt's* proviso, you fuckwit. Fuckwit Harrison doesn't have
any. I have proved that Fuckwit wants livestock animals to live
*irrespective* of their quality of life, because he wants to imagine
that "life itself is a benefit."

Fuckwit has no consideration for animals' lives, meaning the quality of
the lives they actually live. All he wants is for them to exist, so he
can kill and consume them. You know this.