Dietary ethics
On Aug 2, 4:39*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
> >>>>>> belief.
>
> >>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you
>
> >>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
> >>>> contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
> >>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
> >>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
> >>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
> >>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
> >>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
> >>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
> >>>> belief.
>
> >>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.
>
> >> No.
>
> > I'm afraid
>
> Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> * *Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
> >>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
> >>>> have proved.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> >>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> >>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> >>>>>>>>>> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> >>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.
>
> >>>>>>>> I'm right.
>
> >>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.
>
> >>>>>> You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.
>
> >>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
> >>>>> by your argument.
>
> >>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.
>
> >>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.
>
> >> No.
>
> > That's very funny.
>
> No.
>
Well, I laughed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?
>
> >>>>>>>> Irrationality.
>
> >>>>>>> No,
>
> >>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you
>
> >> What you write here, and your obsession with me.
>
> > Where do you see the evidence of hatred?
>
> In your posts.
Can you be more specific?
|