On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Goo wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 8:38 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>> dh quoted Rupert, then 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". 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".
>>>> I did say what is good, I said it's good, other things equal, if a
>>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.
>>> You can't say what's good about it. You can't even give a ****ing clue.
>>> You're completely incoherent.
>>>
>>> In fact, in absolute terms, there's nothing good about it at all.
>>
>> As observed, explanations have to run out somewhere. I say it is good
>> if there are more pleasant experiences. I cannot say what is good
>> about it.
>
>Then, as I have said, you haven't said anything.

More good is more good Goo. It's a math thing. You can't get
it, but most of us can. If he can't explain something so simple and
obvious as more=more, and/or that in some cases more=better,
then I hope whatever he's doing his thesis on is even more simple
than that. But damn Goob, even though you're giving every indication
of being too stupid to understand even the easiest of concepts, you
are right that he should give you an explanation even if he only
keeps pasting the same thing for you over and over. Stupid fools
like yourself are what stock answers were invented for Goo, so Rupert
should still provide you with an explanation even though you've shown
yourself far too stupid to comprehend any answers.