View Single Post
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.fan.jai-maharaj,soc.culture.indian,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,soc.culture.usa
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving - Article by Ryan Berry

On 10/13/2013 2:42 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 10/10/2013 12:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> 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.

>
> That's such a blatant lie


No, it's not a lie. You are not a man, and you *have* admitted it. You
are done - you were done before you started - and you've admitted that, too.

You're done. You are not a man.