On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:21:33 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:04:29 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:09:30 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2012 2:30 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They do Goob, even though they're not aware of the position
>>>>> they're in.
>>>>> LOL...and that particular fact is a very significant part OF their pov
>>>>> Goo. If
>>>>> they were aware of their own position it would be a lot different but
>>>>> they're
>>>>> not and you couldn't make them aware of it even if you tried, Goober.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just very surprising that he would admit he doesn't care about
>>>>>>> the animals.
>>>>>>> I expect him to try lying that he actually does at some point, but
>>>>>>> then again he
>>>>>>> might be afraid to say anything more about it at all. No doubt he
>>>>>>> doesn't want
>>>>>>> to and that's why you being his brother have taken over for his lame
>>>>>>> ass. You
>>>>>>> people are pathetic Goob...amusing, but pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem that I see is that you have made Goober and Rupert
>>>> both your enemies, where Rupert is clearly much smarter than Goober and
>>>> more adept at argument. Goober likes to declare his opinion as fact and
>>>> a lot of people know that he is wrong. Rupert is just afraid to commit
>>>> to any term or phrase that hasn't been laid out well.
>>>
>>>Everybody who bothers to figure out what a load of bullshit he's pushing
>>>is his enemy.
>>
>> Rupert is bullshitting by claiming he can't comprehend the distinction
>>between lives of positive and negative value imo. If not then he's mentally
>>restricted in ways that no one in my sixth grade class was, since we all could
>>do it in sixth grade. Since he's an eliminationist we know he like yourself is a
>>maniacal extremist. He takes the extreme of wanting to see all domestic animals
>>eliminated, yet can't comprehend a distinction between lives of positive and
>>negative value so he claims. That means he can't appreciate any distinction
>>between the value of life for livestock, humans, pets, or wildlife. IF that's
>>really the case then since he wants to see domestic animals eliminated and can't
>>appreciate any distinction between the value of life for them and wildlife it
>>seems he should also want the elimination of wildlife too. Since he can't
>>appreciate any distinction between the value of life for livestock and humans he
>>should also want the elimination of humans. Etc...
>>
>> Goo lies that I'm a convicted felon. Goo lies that I don't consider quality
>>of life. Goo lies that I don't appreciate life for billions of livestock
>>animals. Goo claims life is not the benefit it so clearly appears to be, yet
>>can't even begin to pretend he has any clue what could prevent it from being one
>>(though he's revealed that he thinks it has something to do with the
>>pre-existent state). Goo claims to oppose the misnomer yet can never produce any
>>of his supposed opposition. Goo has suggested that there are multiple Ruperts
>>yet can't even pretend to explain what he thought he was trying to talk about.
>>Goo has insisted that some livestock are raised for no other reason than to
>>become pet food. Goo has lied that he was a Marine. Goo has lied more than once
>>that he has a PhD. Goo has dishonestly pretended to be dozens of different
>>people, often supporting and praising himselves while doing so. Etc...
>
>You're bullshitting when you pose as someone who cares about the
>suffering of animals. You yammer on about "having consideration for the
>animals"

I give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. At one
time you pretended that you did too. What happened to make you unlearn, and why
do you think it should make everybody else unlearn too, don't you have any idea
about that? YOU are the one who claims to have unlearned because it made you
feel "dirty" or whatever, but you can't say what caused the unlearning. How can
you expect other people to unlearn from you, if you can't even say how you
unlearned your own stupid self???

>but all you mean when you say that is that any life or pleasure
>livestock animals have implies a credit to your lifestyle,

I consider the lives of livestock animals in countries that my lifestyle
doesn't influence. I consider them whether they have anything to do with my
lifestlye or not, in contrast to you people who can't consider them even on the
rare occasions when your lifestlyle accidentally supports them somewhat like
your contributions to things produced with animal byproducts.

>and ARAs, in
>contrast by not consuming animal products lose that credit.

You get "credit" for contributing to the deaths of wildlife but no credit
for contributing to anything for livestock animals.

>It is a
>stupid, sophistic attempt to turn the tables on vegetarians, and it
>falls flat.

LOL!!!! HILARIOUS! Now try explaining HOW it "falls flat". Go:



You lose.