marques de sade wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:10:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:56:42 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>>>>> (that is what you suggest).
>>>>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>>>>> in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>>>> thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...
>>> Why does pointing out that I'm not one of billions of people
>>> who believe something, make you think I do have faith in
>>> anything?
>>>
>>>> we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.
>>> Maybe, but Rudy could never even acknowledge
>>> the fact that I don't have any belief either way about the
>>> possibility of multiple lives,
>> That's a lie:
>>
>> The soul is created separate from the body it will
>> reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost
>> certain that if people stop raising animals for
>> food, the souls that would have resided in the food
>> animals, will be born to other bodies instead. My
>> argument with that is: maybe the animals that are
>> being raised and eaten by humans, are providing the
>> life experiences for souls that would have
>> otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
>> have destroyed.
>> Goo/****wit - 12 Jan 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2psrpw
>>
>>
>> You believe in "multiple lives". You're ****witted,
>> stupid and weird.
>
>
> great quote... i wonder if he'll say it was a mistake...
It is as if Goo/****wit sends me a FedEx shipment of
new quotes that damage his case every few weeks.
What's great about the one above is that it completely
contradicts something he wrote just in the last couple
of weeks:
[aras] want people to belive [sic] things like
instead of being born a dairy cow, it could have
been born a happy "free" cow, so I point out that
it would not. Probably the reason you have the
problem, is because you also want to believe that
if "animal rights" were put in place, those same
animals would exist as free ones. That's not the
case.
In fact, the vast majority of the quotes I've collected
from Goo****wit are older ones that completely
contradict the bullshit yarn he's trying to spin now.
For example, Goo****wit regularly bullshits that it is
only "lives of positive value" (bleagh - Goo****wit
really writes horribly) that he wants to promote for
farm animals, but I have several older quotes that
*prove*, beyond dispute, that it is life per se,
irrespective of quality, that he considers to be a
"benefit" to farm animals:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
****wit - 09/04/1999
All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
****wit - 12/11/1999
Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
****wit - 04/12/2002
But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
****wit - 04/20/2002
Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
****wit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)
Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
****wit - 03/22/2005
For each of basic descriptions that I have made about
Goo****wit's weird, irrational beliefs concerning farm
animals
- that his focus is on "future" farm animals, rather
than ones already existing
- that he considers coming into existence per se to be
the big benefit, rather than the quality of existence
once it begins
- that he considers non-existent, "future" farm animals
to be capable of experiencing "loss", "deprivation",
"unfairness" and "denial" *before* they exist
for each of those, I have at least four quotes from him
showing that he believes those goofy, irrational
things; and yet he'll continue to lie and say he doesn't.
He's also lying when he calls any of the quotes a
"mistake" in terminology, or any other kind of mistake.
They are not any kind of mistake in terms of
expressing what he really believes. Taken together,
they weave a very complete, detailed exposition of what
his ****witted, goofy beliefs are concerning animals.