View Single Post
  #109 (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 Aug 1, 7:20*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. *Have you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "can't detect it?" *However, recall that he said:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * post my spew as everyone else does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * * ****wit - 11/30/1999

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. *It *is* his idea. *How the ****
> >>>>>>>>>>>> else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that from happening as an immoral act of interference?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
> >>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist".

>
> >>>>>>>>> No, there are other ways to explain it,

>
> >>>>>>>> Nope.

>
> >>>>>>> Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
> >>>>>>> being better or worse, and

>
> >>>>>> Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
> >>>>>> *for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
> >>>>>> Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.

>
> >>>>> So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
> >>>>> argument.

>
> >>>> I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
> >>>> as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
> >>>> proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
> >>>> experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.

>
> >>> Well, I don't remember any argument,

>
> >> Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.

>
> > I have an extremely good memory.

>
> No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
> contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
> experiencing them.
>


I do have an extremely good memory. I know pi to 140 decimal places,
for example, and I once participated in a psychology experiment where
they said I had an amazing short-term memory. Our different
recollections about what took place when we discussed this issue
probably arise from a different understanding of what constitutes
"making an argument".

> >>>>>>>>>>> If you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
> >>>>>>>>>>> him.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot. *He has already admitted he is unable to express his
> >>>>>>>>>> beliefs coherently.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, maybe you'll never know then.

>
> >>>>>>>> We do know what his beliefs are.

>
> >>>>>>> You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.

>
> >>>>>> No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: *****wit tells us..

>
> >>>>> He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
> >>>>> know.

>
> >>>> There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. *You
> >>>> may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
> >>>> results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
> >>>> understand.

>
> >>> No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.

>
> >> I have done.

>
> > I haven't observed you doing so.

>
> You have; you've just forgotten.


I find that implausible, to say the least.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? *****wit lies because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of his trolling. *****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he believes. *In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> his. *****wit doesn't care about that. *He's just trolling, which is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> essentially dishonest pastime. *If his basic purpose in participating in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> believe anything that he writes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That doesn't follow.

>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "trolling"?

>
> >>>>>>>> Saying stuff to stir shit up. *He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
> >>>>>>>> rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
> >>>>>>>> though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit.

>
> >>>>>>> Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?

>
> >>>>>> Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. *Shit-stirring simply for
> >>>>>> the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
> >>>>>> one's core beliefs, is dishonest.

>
> >>>>> Doesn't seem so to me.

>
> >>>> It is. *You're just being obtuse.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, Prof. Plimpton?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We were,

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.

>
> >>>>>>>> You were the one who exhibited psychosis.

>
> >>>>>>> In what way?

>
> >>>>>> <chortle>

>
> >>>>> It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question

>
> >>>> <guffaw>

>
> >>> Do you think I have delusions?

>
> >> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.


What are some examples?