View Single Post
  #127 (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 2, 5:02*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> 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.

>
> >> You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.

>
> > I am taking them as prescribed.

>
> Clearly you aren't. *Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.
>


There are many things you think you know which you don't.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> * * *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.

>
> >> Psychosis.

>
> > That was quite funny as well.

>
> That's lovely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>
> >> <yawn>

>
> > Your belief that I hate you is irrational.

>
> It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?