****wit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>>>>> deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>>>> /contaminated/
>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>>>>> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>>>> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how you continue to insist that he a<sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Prof. Plimpton's claims are my
>>>>> stupidity, do you have any clue at all?

This beloved construction of yours - "How do you [****wit mangled
syntax], do you have...?" is perfectly emblematic of your stupidity and
virtual illiteracy.


>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..
>>>
>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Prof. Plimpton's claims
>>> have anything to
>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
>>> idea up
>>> with.
>>
>> It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
>> misinterpreted all of them.
>
> Prof. Plimpton himself said they were all true.

They are, but you still misconstrued them and misinterpreted them.


> Do you think he really disagrees with himself about that?

Another classic ****wittism!

The quotes are true statements, even though you mangled some of them.
The original are all true statements. For example, what I really wrote
for one of them is:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.

which you have mangled - because you are a dishonest shitbag - to read

then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.


You're dishonest and a liar. We have always known that about you, ****wit.