View Single Post
  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

Goo ****wit David Harrison - convicted fighting dog breeder & seller - lied:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>>>> explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you still agree that "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.", Goo
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> If not, you still agree that "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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you still agree that
>>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.
>>>
>>> Then according to yourself

>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

>
> Then according to yourself


"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

"according to yourself" - you stupid ****ing illiterate cracker: it
should be "according to you."

You're stupid, Goo - stupid beyond belief. A loser.