On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:54:24 -0700, Goo admitted:

>On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:40:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:43:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:18:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:03:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:04:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:35:33 -0700, Goo disagreed with himself:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:00:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:23:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:22:25 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:55:18 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
>>>>>>>>>>(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>>>The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[ Subject: The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving
>>>>>>>>>>>[ From:
>>>>>>>>>>>[ Date: Sunday, November 28, 2004
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>By Rynn Berry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://all-creatures.org/articles/tgveg-rb.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[Ed.] "But it's tradition," is the cry when vegetarians
>>>>>>>>>>>wonder why killing an animal should make Thanksgiving
>>>>>>>>>>>special.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've never known anyone to say that. We could consider that if humans had
>>>>>>>>>>never begun to eat meat none of us who are alive today would be, and possibly no
>>>>>>>>>>humans would exist anywhere on the planet. 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. We can also consider
>>>>>>>>>>that the people who eat meat contribute to the lives of turkeys etc, while
>>>>>>>>>>people who are vegans don't contribute to any lives for any livestock animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing as well as you do
>>>>>>>>about considering their lives, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because the animal was alive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY because it was raised for food Goob.
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Less irrelevant than the fact that they're killed, Goob. Other than because
>>>>it works against elimination, why are you so desperate that people don't
>>>>consider their lives as being as significant as their deaths Goober? Is that the
>>>>only reason for your desperate position, Goo?
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> What other reason(s) do you think you have, Goo?
>>
>>>>>>>up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
>>>>>>>*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>>>consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>>
>>>Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
>>>existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence
>>
>> Try to explain how you think something can get to experience life without
>>continuing to exist Goo. Go:
>>...
>>>you don't have any hope of beating me.
>>
>> You outstupided yourself AGAIN unless you can explain how you think
>>something can get to experience life without continuing to exist Goob. You also
>>outstupid yourself when you are dishonest which is the majority of the time. I
>>beat you when those things happen and I beat you every time I challenge you to
>>explain some things you can't explain, you lame Googoots. I'll beat you nineteen
>>times again now by challenging you to try:
>>
>>1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>> can not experience.
>>
>>2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.
>>
>>3. providing any opposition at all to "AR".
>>
>>4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.
>>
>>5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.
>>
>>6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
>> disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
>> from their elimination objective.
>>
>>7. describing any emotion(s) through language.
>>
>>8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
>> better lives for food animals.
>>
>>9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
>> than another.
>>
>>10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
>> other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
>>
>>11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
>> disappointment, if there are any.
>>
>>12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
>> to the elimination of domestic animals.
>>
>>13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
>> certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
>> particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.
>>
>>14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
>>
>>15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
>> from a dog.
>>
>>16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
>> with animals.
>>
>>17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food
>> than the experiencing of their lives.
>>
>>18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness
>> in dogs.
>>
>>19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, if
>> "They are not aware that they can see."
>
>admitted

You admit I beat you nineteen times just then, Goo.

>>>>>>>I get this, and you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think you do then try explaining how you think you disagree with
>>>>>>yourself about it Goo. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>I do
>>>>
>>>> Then try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself about it Goo.
>>>>GO:
>>>
>>>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
>>
>> Then why can't you force it now Goober? Even though you can't force it, try
>>to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:
>
>I

Try to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:

"I am not a man." - Goo