On 10/10/2013 12:02 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 10/9/2013 11:54 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You admit

*YOU* are the one admitting things around here, *Gloo*. You admit I
beat you - I beat you like a drum.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Try to present

Done.

You are not a man. You admit it.