****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard
>>>>>>> trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did
>>>>>>> believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.
>>>>>>> Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the
>>>>>>> possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why
>>>>>>> is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?
>>>>>>> How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would
>>>>>> experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing".
>>>>>> But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing."
>>>>>
>>>>> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more
>>>>> than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not
>>>>> be confused by it. You stupid Goober.
>>>>
>>>> No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than
>>>> just 'nothing'"
>>>
>>> They exist as a concept
>>
>> you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs
>> based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.
What I actually wrote, that you snipped:
First of all, Goo, "concepts" of potential beings don't deserve any
moral consideration.
Second of all, Goo, you're lying: *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
"in some sense" as individual potential "future farm animals." What
you're saying, Goo, is that the potential for life of individual "future
farm animals" deserves moral consideration - but it does not.
If "vegans" were to succeed at stopping the breeding of livestock, Goo,
no potential "future farm animals" would be "denied life", as you once
put it. You can't "deny" anything to an entity that doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999
If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
****wit - 10 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
In *ALL* of those, Goo, you are not talking about potential "future farm
animals" as a concept - you are talking about them as some kind of
entity that deserves moral consideration *today*, and you insist that
that consideration necessarily must lead to wanting the animals to
exist. But that's stupid.
You can't *do* it, Goo - you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs
based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.
>
> The way I suggested they are more than just nothing is
Is that you think they *EXIST* in some sense, Goo - some sense in which
they are "owed" some kind of moral consideration.
That's what you meant. I didn't lie about your beliefs. You're lying
to try to escape the implication of them.
You just aren't up to my level on this, Goo - and you never will be.
You *know* it, too.