View Single Post
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> >>>>>>>>> goddess" > wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
> >>>>>>>>>> Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that life still has positive value to them

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
> >>>>>>>>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

>
> >>>>>>>>> * * * * *It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> >>>>>>>>>>> exist.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's a logical point.

>
> >>>>>>>>> * * * * *It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> >>>>>>>>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago

>
> >>>>>>>> It is not a mistake in terminology

>
> >>>>>>> * * * * That's a blatant lie.

>
> >>>>>> It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
> >>>>>> most deeply held belief:

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>>>> * * * * * *born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *that would experience the loss if their lives
> >>>>>> * * * * * *are prevented.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 08/01/2000

>
> >>>>>> You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
> >>>>>> claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
> >>>>>> was a lie:

>
> >>>>>> * * * * * *The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>>>> * * * * * *are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>>>> * * * * * **will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>>>> * * * * * *lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>>>> * * * * * *whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>>>> * * * * * *them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>>>> * * * * * *****wit - 12/09/1999

>
> >>>>>> Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
> >>>>>> plainly see.

>
> >>>>> If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
> >>>>> contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?

>
> >>>> The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
> >>>> this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
> >>>> notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
> >>>> considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
> >>>> they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
> >>>> saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
> >>>> his August 2000 statement.

>
> >>>> This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
> >>>> your problem?

>
> >>> Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?

>
> >> He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
> >> consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
> >> you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
> >> possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
> >> wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
> >> insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
> >> themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
> >> thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
> >> "eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
> >> breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
> >> own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
> >> you do know it, and we all know you know it.

>
> > So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

>
> Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
> written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
> think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
> from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
> became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
> that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
> obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.
>


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?

> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?

> He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
> incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Ball?