On 10/9/2013 11:40 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

> On 10/7/2013 5:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 10/7/2013 3:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:
>>
>>> On 10/4/2013 2:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2013 1:04 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/3/2013 6:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
>>>>>>>> again*:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We could also consider that animals
>>>>>>>>> raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop
>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>> are, but
>>>>>>>>> instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>>>> them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally
>>>>>>>> considerable.
>>>>>>>> It has no moral importance at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While what you
>>>>>>>> wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical
>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>> of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It
>>>>>>>> offers no
>>>>>>>> clarity or ethical guidance at all. It's a complete waste of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no case. You are not a man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
>>>>>> *Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning. Merely having
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> prospect of existing has no moral meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY because it was raised for food
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant, of course.
>>>
>>> Less irrelevant than
>>
>> No, it's just irrelevant - period.
>
> What other reason(s)

Settled: it is entirely irrelevant that the animal was raised for food.
That has nothing to do with the ethics of killing it.

You agree.


>>>>>> *Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>> consideration
>>
>> Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
>> existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence, *Gloo*. We're
>> comparing coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your
>> shitty way of putting it - with *never* existing. Coming into existence
>> is not a benefit - period. I've explained it, and you agree.
>
> Try to explain how

Done.


>> *Continuing* to exist, once one already exists, is something else.
>> That's why killing the animal deserves a *LOT* of moral consideration,
>> *Gloo*.
>>
>> *Gloo*, you keep trying to play word games with me, and you *KNOW* you
>> can't win them. You can't win them, *Gloo*, because I'm smarter than
>> you, I'm more intelligent than you, I'm more articulate than you, and I
>> understand language *FAR* above your cracker limitation. You are
>> *SOOOOOO* far below me when it comes to use of language, *Gloo*, that
>> you don't have any hope of beating me.
>
> You outstupided yours

You have no hope of beating me, and you have admitted it.


>>>>>> I get this, and you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think you do then
>>>>
>>>> I do, and you don't. You've admitted it.
>>>>
>>>> You are not a man.
>>>
>>> Then try explaining
>>
>> I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
>> experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,
>> *Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it, *Gloo* - you had no choice.
>
> Then why can't you

I can, and I have. You have agreed with it. You're done.

You are not a man.