View Single Post
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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.


No, you don't.


>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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


<smirk>


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


A delusion of competence, for one. A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.