Dietary ethics
On 8/2/2012 1:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Aug., 19:29, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
> position to know than you?
No.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> I do not believe that I am an ethicist
You fancy yourself one.
|