On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:56:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch > wrote:
>> >> Rupert wrote:
>> >>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>
>> >> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>> >> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>
>> >> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>> >> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>
>> >> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
>> >> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.
>>
>> > It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
>> > claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.
>>
>> He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
>> Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
>> to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
>> lying, unless you have another explanation.
>
>Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?

I've been through it with both of those Goobers before and between us the
ONLY people we can think of who have good reason to oppose considering the lives
of livestock are eliminationists. NO OTHER group of people have good reason to
oppose it, so that's one reason to believe the Goos are eliminationists. Another
reason is that "Dutch" ADMITTED TO being an eliminationist when he first began
posting he

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"

"It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
killing them." - "Dutch"

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"

and it wasn't until he had been posting for a while that he started calling
himself Apostate and claimed to have changed his pov completely. Then later
after he claimed to have changed his pov entirely he began claiming that he had
begun to eat meat. But if he had, then he would have no reason to oppose
consideration for the lives of billions of livestock animals. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose it. So it seems much more likely that he's
lying about having begun to eat meat and support decent AW over elimination,
since he's still maniacally opposed to appreciating when decent AW successfully
results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals. One reason
he lies is because he's aware that true AW supporters do NOT respect
eliminationists or their opinions about livestock as we certainly should not, so
he's trying to gain respect he doesn't deserve from any true AW supporters that
he's able to fool into believing what he claims about himself.

Here's a test for you to see for yourself: Ask "Dutch" and Goo what their
oppositions to elimination are. I've challenged both of them on that countless
times and neither of them have ever been able to provide any opposition that's
even worth taking into consideration. In fact I don't remember them ever making
an attempt when challenged, but instead just making up excuses as to why they
wouldn't do it. Those are some of the reasons I have for considering them to be
lying eliminationists instead of actual AW supporters. Of course the high
percentage of dishonest things they say and try to get away with is more reason
on top of the others...