dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, 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.
>
> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives

BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep
you from being labelled a ****wit.


or not much less can
> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
> incapable of even making an attempt.
>
> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
> consider the possibility unlike yourself.
>
>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>
> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
> on individual interpretation.

Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as
you do, is moronic.

> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
> out that they don't?

You pose it as a fact that we should consider as unfavorable for them,
that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".

You're bobbing and weaving trying to hide from your own position, you've
been doing that for several years.

> Do you think it's an attack on Zebras when people point out
> that they have stripes?

Stripes on zebras don't depend on non-existent animals "getting to
experience life".

> Do you think it's an attack on meat consumers to point
> out that they contribute to life for livestock?

I think that from the standpoint of assessing morals and ethics, which
is what we are supposed to be doing here, it is a totally meaningless
fact, just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives
is, in and of itself, totally meaningless.

>> 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.
>
> That's a blatant lie I doubt anyone is stupid enough to believe...except
> MAYBE for yourself, but doubt even you are honestly that stupid.

If you don't believe in non-existent animals then you can't criticize
vegans for not "bringing them into existence".

> Since billions of people DO believe in multiple lives, why is it so
> important to you Goos to get people to think I do to? Do you even have an idea
> why it's important to you for people to believe that particular lie? What if I
> was a Hindu and did believe it? Then what?

Your idiocy never ends.