View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2008, 05:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
[email protected] dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Rupert kicks the Goos' collective asses.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Goo lied about proof though there isn't even any evidence:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:31:03 -0100, [email protected] pointed out:

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

Excellent point,


No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better".


Even if he can't explain it the point remains solid, Goo.

It
just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
"good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".


What it means Goober, is that it's better for some animals to
experience their lives than it would be for them not to even if
there is some positive value to any supposed "state" of
pre-existence, and most especially if there is none.

Note, Goo, that rupie is *NOT* agreeing with you.


He's new to the concept, Goo. I've been familiar with it
for over 20 years, but it's new to him. You can't comprehend
it at all Goober, so any ideas you might have on the topic
are necessarily the most ignorant and stupid, since you are
completely stupid and ignorant in regards to the fact itself.

You insist, stupidly
and irrationally and *WRONGLY*, that it is "better for the animals" that
they exist. It is not; it is proved that it is not; that it *cannot* be.


It has only been claimed by you Goober, with absolutely
nothing to back it up. You have never been able to explain,
nor will you ever be, exactly how you believe pre-existent
entities or/and the supposed pre-existent "state" prevent
existing animals from benefitting from their existence. You
can't even explain how you think you think the prevention
takes place, Goo. If you really think you think "it is proved
that it is not; that it *cannot* be", then try providing evidence
of that having been proved. Go:

(Correct prediction: Contrary to his boasting of it having
been done, the Goober will be unable to present any
example(s) of what it is he thinks he's trying to talkd about.)

and simply by pointing that fact out you have
kicked the Goos' collective asses. They have no argument against
it, and any attempt they make trying to present one will be at "best"
amusing absurdity. Congratulations on kicking the Goobers' asses!