On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:

>dh challenged:

>>> I know exactly what you're talking about
>>
>> Prove it by trying to explain then, Goobs.
>
>I have explained satisfactorily hundreds of times

LOL.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief for
>>>>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
>>>>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid idea,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker. There
>>>>>>>is no such "common false belief".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes Goo there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>>>> rock and rollers. I was around people who held that belief
>>>>>> for a number of years, and then got away from them into an
>>>>>> environment with people who were not so ignorant. In fact I
>>>>>> was away from such ignorance for long enough that I began
>>>>>> to wonder if I had had the wrong impression. Then things
>>>>>> changed, and I began working with that level of musician
>>>>>> again for a few years, and again there was that type of
>>>>>> "thinking".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the same thing here Goober. You who have faith in
>>>>>> the misnomer believe a number of ignorant things but that
>>>>>> doesn't mean I have to join in your beliefs, especially since
>>>>>> you can't even explain them yourself. If you want to try explaining
>>>>>> the most basic of your absurdities--which we know you can't
>>>>>> Goo--then try explaining which rights for which animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He and I both have been very patient in articulating clearly why your
>>>>>argument is flawed, it's you who has doggedly refused to listen.
>>>>
>>>> You have lied to me, and quoted from an imaginary talking
>>>> pig, and that's all. You can't expect that to change what I've
>>>> learned conflicts with your fantasy.
>>>
>>>
>>>You were wedged into this irrational argument long before Salt's essay
>>>came
>>>up. You think that you can and must justify consuming animal products by
>>>taking credit for the fact that livestock "experience life".
>>
>> I understand that it's necessary to consider the animals, in order to
>> get any idea whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans to raise
>> them for food. You don't understand that, but I do.
>
>You misunderstand everything. It's not necessary to believe that animals
>benefit by being born in order to understand that they can suffer harm by
>suffering pain or deprivation.

Duh Bagoo.

>In fact that false belief hinders your
>ability to consider their suffering objectively, since you feel that they
>start with a benefit.

There's no way you could understand how I feel about that.
Are you really unaware that you've spent several years trying to
prevent anyone from thinking about how I do feel about it?

>>>You probably got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your
>>>involvement in cock fighting.
>>
>> I learned to understand it by thinking through why I destroyed
>> eggs which would have hatched into chicks I didn't want to raise,
>> instead of letting them hatch and experience life for a while--the
>> best part of life for chickens--instead.
>
>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.

Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
this point.

>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>
>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>
>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>
>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than outweighs
>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>otherwise had.

Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things that
give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
could never appreciate.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:03:04 GMT, Goob wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
>cracker, lied:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Goob wrote:
>>
>>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>
>> Try explaining why you think that, you poor inept Goober.
>
>I have

Then try doing it "again" Goob.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:50:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >>>> Bagoo wrote:
> >>>>> dh pointed out:
>
> >>>>>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
> >>>>>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
> >>>>>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
> >>>>>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
> >>>>>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
> >>>>>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
> >>>>>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
> >>>>>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
> >>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
> >>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
> >>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> >>>> a fantasy
> >>> No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>
> >> I challenge either of you to present "them", Goobs.
>
> >We have
>
> I challenge either of you

No, you don't, ****wit. You have never posed any kind of challenge to
us at all. Someone of your infantile intellect is no challenge at all.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007,Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >>>> "Dutch" wrote:
> >>>> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>
> >>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
> >>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
> >>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
> >>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
> >>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
> >>>> >> appreciate
> >>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
> >>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
> >>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>
> >>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
> >>>> >you
> >>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>
> >>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> >>>> a fantasy
>
> >>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>
> >> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>
> >Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you utter
> >them.
>
> I challenge either of you
No. You are never a challenge, ****wit.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:03:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
> >cracker, lied:
> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rjudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>
> >> Try explaining why you think that, Rudy.
>
> >I have
>
> Try re-reading the several hundred already posted, ****wit.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007,Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied
> :
> >>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief for
> >>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
> >>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid idea,
> >>>>> It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker. There
> >>>>> is no such "common false belief".
> >>>> Yes Goober there certainly is, especially among club band type
> >>>> rock and rollers.
> >>> You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
> >>> gofer.
>
> >> I know Rudy
>
> >I know exactly what you're talking about
>
> Prove it by trying to explain then

Done, hundreds of times, ****wit. Go back and read them again.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza:
>
> >Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>
> Try explaining

Done, hundreds of times. Read it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:53:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
>>>>LoL
>>>>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to
>>>>Salt's
>>>>excellent essay.
>>>
>>> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
>>> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>>>
>>>>So was Jonathan.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>>>
>>> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.
>>
>>
>>Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good
>>would
>>it do?
>
> For you it would provide evidence that you're not lying.


I already know I'm not lying. What good would it do me to prove it to you?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>>>> >you
>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>
>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>
>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>
>>
>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you utter
>>them.
>
> I challenge

Too many challenges and quizzes nimrod, not enough thinking.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
>>>>>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid
>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker.
>>>>>>>>There
>>>>>>>>is no such "common false belief".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes Goo there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>>>>> rock and rollers. I was around people who held that belief
>>>>>>> for a number of years, and then got away from them into an
>>>>>>> environment with people who were not so ignorant. In fact I
>>>>>>> was away from such ignorance for long enough that I began
>>>>>>> to wonder if I had had the wrong impression. Then things
>>>>>>> changed, and I began working with that level of musician
>>>>>>> again for a few years, and again there was that type of
>>>>>>> "thinking".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the same thing here Goober. You who have faith in
>>>>>>> the misnomer believe a number of ignorant things but that
>>>>>>> doesn't mean I have to join in your beliefs, especially since
>>>>>>> you can't even explain them yourself. If you want to try explaining
>>>>>>> the most basic of your absurdities--which we know you can't
>>>>>>> Goo--then try explaining which rights for which animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He and I both have been very patient in articulating clearly why your
>>>>>>argument is flawed, it's you who has doggedly refused to listen.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have lied to me, and quoted from an imaginary talking
>>>>> pig, and that's all. You can't expect that to change what I've
>>>>> learned conflicts with your fantasy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You were wedged into this irrational argument long before Salt's essay
>>>>came
>>>>up. You think that you can and must justify consuming animal products by
>>>>taking credit for the fact that livestock "experience life".
>>>
>>> I understand that it's necessary to consider the animals, in order to
>>> get any idea whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans to raise
>>> them for food. You don't understand that, but I do.
>>
>>You misunderstand everything. It's not necessary to believe that animals
>>benefit by being born in order to understand that they can suffer harm by
>>suffering pain or deprivation.
>
> Duh Bagoo.

I don't know what that means. You said that it's necessary to consider the
animals, I showed that it isn't.

That ought to be the end of our conversation, finally.

>>In fact that false belief hinders your
>>ability to consider their suffering objectively, since you feel that they
>>start with a benefit.
>
> There's no way you could understand how I feel about that.
> Are you really unaware that you've spent several years trying to
> prevent anyone from thinking about how I do feel about it?

Wrong, shit-for-brains. Nobody cares.

>>>>You probably got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your
>>>>involvement in cock fighting.
>>>
>>> I learned to understand it by thinking through why I destroyed
>>> eggs which would have hatched into chicks I didn't want to raise,
>>> instead of letting them hatch and experience life for a while--the
>>> best part of life for chickens--instead.
>>
>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>
> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
> this point.

You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.

>
>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>
>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>
>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>
>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>outweighs
>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>otherwise had.
>
> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things that
> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
> could never appreciate.

How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe ALL
livestock have lives of negative value? It's not, it's only a matter of
degree.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:37:45 -0700, dh wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Goo claimed:
>>
>> >I know exactly what you're talking about
>>
>> Prove it by trying to explain then, Goo. When you can't,
>>you will have again proven that you're a liar.
>
>Done, hundreds of times

Now that you mention it, you have proven yourself a
liar hundreds of times. Everyone familiar with you can
certainly agree with that...except for your little Bagoo
who lies with you, Goo. It's amazing you could get anyone
into bed to lie with you Goobs, but you saw a sucker and
successfully lured him right on in. It makes a person wonder
what you used for bait...

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>>>>> >you
>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>
>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>
>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you utter
>>>them.
>>
>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>
>Too many challenges

Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.

>and quizzes

So far there's only one quiz which you are rightly afraid to take.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
>>>>>>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid
>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker.
>>>>>>>>>There
>>>>>>>>>is no such "common false belief".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes Goo there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>>>>>> rock and rollers. I was around people who held that belief
>>>>>>>> for a number of years, and then got away from them into an
>>>>>>>> environment with people who were not so ignorant. In fact I
>>>>>>>> was away from such ignorance for long enough that I began
>>>>>>>> to wonder if I had had the wrong impression. Then things
>>>>>>>> changed, and I began working with that level of musician
>>>>>>>> again for a few years, and again there was that type of
>>>>>>>> "thinking".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the same thing here Goober. You who have faith in
>>>>>>>> the misnomer believe a number of ignorant things but that
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean I have to join in your beliefs, especially since
>>>>>>>> you can't even explain them yourself. If you want to try explaining
>>>>>>>> the most basic of your absurdities--which we know you can't
>>>>>>>> Goo--then try explaining which rights for which animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He and I both have been very patient in articulating clearly why your
>>>>>>>argument is flawed, it's you who has doggedly refused to listen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have lied to me, and quoted from an imaginary talking
>>>>>> pig, and that's all. You can't expect that to change what I've
>>>>>> learned conflicts with your fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You were wedged into this irrational argument long before Salt's essay
>>>>>came
>>>>>up. You think that you can and must justify consuming animal products by
>>>>>taking credit for the fact that livestock "experience life".
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it's necessary to consider the animals, in order to
>>>> get any idea whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans to raise
>>>> them for food. You don't understand that, but I do.
>>>
>>>You misunderstand everything. It's not necessary to believe that animals
>>>benefit by being born in order to understand that they can suffer harm by
>>>suffering pain or deprivation.
>>
>> Duh Bagoo.
>
>I don't know what that means. You said that it's necessary to consider the
>animals, I showed that it isn't.
>
>That ought to be the end of our conversation, finally.

If you ever showed anything at all, you have only shown why
advocates of the misnomer can't consider the animals. Since I
feel strongly the opposite way, what you may have shown doesn't
have the significance for me that it has for you...to the point that
I can't even tell which part(s) of your crap you think you're trying
to refer to. Try providing some example(s):

.. . .
>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>
>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>> this point.
>
>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.

I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
don't have any idea what I was telling you about.

>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>
>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>
>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>
>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>outweighs
>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>otherwise had.
>>
>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things that
>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
>> could never appreciate.
>
>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe ALL
>livestock have lives of negative value?

LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.

>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.

The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
You can't even understand the significance of things that you
yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober declaired, AGAIN:
>>
>> >Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>
>> Try explaining why you think that, Goob.
>
>Done, hundreds of times. Read it.

A search of your previous inept attempts demonstrates
Goober that at one point you made clear to everyone your
belief in some "pre-existence state", and also your doubts
that what you call "the existence we know" is as good
as what you believed your supposed "pre-existence state"
to be:
__________________________________________________ _______
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Later you claim to have somehow *learned* that your
supposed "pre-existence state" *is in fact* better than
what you call "the existence we know". Therefore
you believe nothing ever "benefits from coming into
existence", but instead would be somehow better off
if "the entity" remains in your supposed "pre-existence
state", and never "moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know":
__________________________________________________ _______
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off" - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You have clearly made the claims, Goobs, but you have
yet to explain why anyone else would believe:

1. in your supposed "pre-existence state"
2. that your supposed "pre-existence state" is ALWAYS
better than what you call "the existence we know"
3. that there's any possible way you could have *learned*
that your supposed "pre-existence state" is ALWAYS
better than what you call "the existence we know"
4. that any supposed "entity(s)" in some supposed
"pre-existence state" could possibly--in *any* way--prevent
existing beings from benefitting from their own existence

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0700, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>> Try explaining why you think that, Goob.
>> Done, hundreds of times. Read it.
>
> A search of

Read it, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>> >> don't
>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>> >beliefs,
>>>>>>> >you
>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>utter
>>>>them.
>>>
>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>
>>Too many challenges
>
> Every one of them is

A complete waste of time.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:icgt73dahu8hrov2m65nhnpbfl956fgmt6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
>>>>>>>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid
>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker.
>>>>>>>>>>There
>>>>>>>>>>is no such "common false belief".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes Goo there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>>>>>>> rock and rollers. I was around people who held that belief
>>>>>>>>> for a number of years, and then got away from them into an
>>>>>>>>> environment with people who were not so ignorant. In fact I
>>>>>>>>> was away from such ignorance for long enough that I began
>>>>>>>>> to wonder if I had had the wrong impression. Then things
>>>>>>>>> changed, and I began working with that level of musician
>>>>>>>>> again for a few years, and again there was that type of
>>>>>>>>> "thinking".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's the same thing here Goober. You who have faith in
>>>>>>>>> the misnomer believe a number of ignorant things but that
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean I have to join in your beliefs, especially since
>>>>>>>>> you can't even explain them yourself. If you want to try
>>>>>>>>> explaining
>>>>>>>>> the most basic of your absurdities--which we know you can't
>>>>>>>>> Goo--then try explaining which rights for which animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He and I both have been very patient in articulating clearly why
>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>argument is flawed, it's you who has doggedly refused to listen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have lied to me, and quoted from an imaginary talking
>>>>>>> pig, and that's all. You can't expect that to change what I've
>>>>>>> learned conflicts with your fantasy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You were wedged into this irrational argument long before Salt's essay
>>>>>>came
>>>>>>up. You think that you can and must justify consuming animal products
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>taking credit for the fact that livestock "experience life".
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that it's necessary to consider the animals, in order
>>>>> to
>>>>> get any idea whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans to raise
>>>>> them for food. You don't understand that, but I do.
>>>>
>>>>You misunderstand everything. It's not necessary to believe that animals
>>>>benefit by being born in order to understand that they can suffer harm
>>>>by
>>>>suffering pain or deprivation.
>>>
>>> Duh Bagoo.
>>
>>I don't know what that means. You said that it's necessary to consider the
>>animals, I showed that it isn't.
>>
>>That ought to be the end of our conversation, finally.
>
> If you ever showed anything at all, you have only shown why
> advocates of the misnomer can't consider the animals. Since I
> feel strongly the opposite way, what you may have shown doesn't
> have the significance for me that it has for you...to the point that
> I can't even tell which part(s) of your crap you think you're trying
> to refer to. Try providing some example(s):
>
> . . .
>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>
>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>> this point.
>>
>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>
> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.

You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism.
In short, bull-crap.

>
>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>
>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>
>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>outweighs
>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>otherwise had.
>>>
>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>> that
>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
>>> could never appreciate.
>>
>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>ALL
>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>
> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>
>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>
> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.

Good, so no more Logic of the Larder then?

> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.


Feel better now ****wit?

On Jul 2, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:a2ai835mv6spncccb7uk3oe2e7fc9c66ii@4ax .com...
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:53:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >><dh@.> wrote
> >>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
> >>>>>>you
> >>>>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>
> >>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> >>>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>
> >>>>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
> >>>>LoL
> >>>>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to
> >>>>Salt's
> >>>>excellent essay.
>
> >>> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
> >>> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>
> >>>>So was Jonathan.
>
> >>>>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>
> >>> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.
>
> >>Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good
> >>would
> >>it do?
>
> > For you it would provide evidence that you're not lying.
>
> I already know I'm not lying. What good would it do me to prove it to you?

****wit knows you're not lying, too. His entire participation here is
a lie, and he knows it.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Goo claimed:
>
> >> >I know exactly what you're talking about
>
> >> Prove it by trying to explain then, Rudy.
>
> >Done, hundreds of times
>
> Now that you mention it

Now that I mention it, ****wit, I actually have done it well over a
thousand times.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Goo lied:

>On Jul 2, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:a2ai835mv6spncccb7uk3oe2e7fc9c66ii@4ax .com...
>> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:53:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >><dh@.> wrote
>> >>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>><dh@.> wrote
>> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>> >>>>>>you
>> >>>>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>
>> >>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>> >>>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>>
>> >>>>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
>> >>>>LoL
>> >>>>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to
>> >>>>Salt's
>> >>>>excellent essay.
>>
>> >>> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
>> >>> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>>
>> >>>>So was Jonathan.
>>
>> >>>>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>>
>> >>> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.
>>
>> >>Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good
>> >>would
>> >>it do?
>>
>> > For you it would provide evidence that you're not lying.
>>
>> I already know I'm not lying. What good would it do me to prove it to you?
>
>****wit knows you're not lying

No Goo.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>>> >> don't
>>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>>> >beliefs,
>>>>>>>> >you
>>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>>utter
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>>
>>>Too many challenges
>>
>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>
>A complete waste of time.

Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet. So far
there's only one quiz which you are rightly afraid to take.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>
>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>> this point.
>>>
>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>
>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>
>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism.
>In short, bull-crap.

Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
can't appreciate how.

>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>
>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>> that
>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>
>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>ALL
>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>
>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>
>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>
>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>
>Good,

It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
but not for those of you who can't of course.

>so no more Logic of the Larder then?

How do you figure that, you poor fool?

>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>
>Feel better now ****wit?

You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
for all these years.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:07:33 GMT, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
>cracker, lied:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh challenged:
:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.

>>>> Try explaining why you think that, Goob.

>>> Done, hundreds of times. Read it.
>>
>> A search of your previous inept attempts demonstrates
>>Goober that at one point you made clear to everyone your
>>belief in some "pre-existence state", and also your doubts
>>that what you call "the existence we know" is as good
>>as what you believed your supposed "pre-existence state"
>>to be:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>Later you claim to have somehow *learned* that your
>>supposed "pre-existence state" *is in fact* better than
>>what you call "the existence we know". Therefore
>>you believe nothing ever "benefits from coming into
>>existence", but instead would be somehow better off
>>if "the entity" remains in your supposed "pre-existence
>>state", and never "moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know":
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off" - Goo
>>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>You have clearly made the claims, Goobs, but you have
>>yet to explain why anyone else would believe:
>>
>>1. in your supposed "pre-existence state"
>>2. that your supposed "pre-existence state" is ALWAYS
>>better than what you call "the existence we know"
>>3. that there's any possible way you could have *learned*
>>that your supposed "pre-existence state" is ALWAYS
>>better than what you call "the existence we know"
>>4. that any supposed "entity(s)" in some supposed
>>"pre-existence state" could possibly--in *any* way--prevent
>>existing beings from benefitting from their own existence
>
>Read it

Try explaining those four things you always fail to
explain, Goob.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 9:14 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:a2ai835mv6spncccb7uk3oe2e7fc9c66ii@4ax .com...
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:53:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
>>>>>>> LoL
>>>>>>> before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to
>>>>>>> Salt's
>>>>>>> excellent essay.
>>>>>> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
>>>>>> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>>>>>>> So was Jonathan.
>>>>>>> Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>>>>>> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.
>>>>> Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good
>>>>> would
>>>>> it do?
>>>> For you it would provide evidence that you're not lying.
>>> I already know I'm not lying. What good would it do me to prove it to you?
>> ****wit knows you're not lying
>
> No Rudy.

Yes, ****wit. He isn't lying, and you know he isn't.
Lying and time-wasting are the only tactics you've had
available to you for seven years.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:07:33 GMT, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
>> cracker, lied:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0700, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> :
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rudy C. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>
>>>>> Try explaining why you think that, Rudy.
>
>>>> Done, hundreds of times. Read it.
>>> A search of your previous
>>
>> Read it
>
> Try explaining

Done.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:hcg28315een6daur70a9pfo70brbvjjg5l@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I
>>>>>>>>> >> certainly
>>>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>>>> >> don't
>>>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>>>> >beliefs,
>>>>>>>>> >you
>>>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>>>utter
>>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>>>
>>>>Too many challenges
>>>
>>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>>
>>A complete waste of time.
>
> Every one of them is

a complete waste of time.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>> this point.
>>>>
>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>
>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>
>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>sophism.
>>In short, bull-crap.
>
> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
> can't appreciate how.

The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
bull-crap.

>
>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>> that
>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>> you
>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>
>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>>ALL
>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>
>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>
>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>
>>Good,
>
> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>
>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>
> How do you figure that

If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree then you
can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for livestock.

>
>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>
>>Feel better now ****wit?
>
> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
> for all these years.

I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral bargaining
chip as the LoL does.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic
time-waster, lied:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> >>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> om...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
> >>>>>>>dh once again explained:
> >>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>
> >>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
> >>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
> >>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
> >>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
> >>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
> >>>>>>>> >> appreciate
> >>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
> >>>>>>>> >> don't
> >>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
> >>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>
> >>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
> >>>>>>>> >beliefs,
> >>>>>>>> >you
> >>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> >>>>>>>> a fantasy
>
> >>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>
> >>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>
> >>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
> >>>>>utter
> >>>>>them.
>
> >>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>
> >>>Too many challenges
>
> >> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>
> >A complete waste of time.
>
> Every one of them is beyond your ability to

No, ****wit. You are no challenge to anyone, ****wit, certainly not
to Dutch. You have no ability, and Dutch has quite a lot.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:19:15 -0000, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic
>time-waster, lied:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>> >>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>> om...
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>> >>>>>>>dh once again explained:
>> >>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>> >>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>> >>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>> >>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>> >>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>> >>>>>>>> >> appreciate
>> >>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>> >>>>>>>> >> don't
>> >>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>> >>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>> >>>>>>>> >beliefs,
>> >>>>>>>> >you
>> >>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>> >>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>
>> >>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>
>> >>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>
>> >>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>> >>>>>utter
>> >>>>>them.
>>
>> >>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>
>> >>>Too many challenges
>>
>> >> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>>
>> >A complete waste of time.
>>
>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to
>
>No, ****wit. You are no challenge to anyone, ****wit, certainly not
>to Dutch. You have no ability, and Dutch has quite a lot.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:48:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:hcg28315een6daur70a9pfo70brbvjjg5l@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>>>>>dh once again explained:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I
>>>>>>>>>> >> certainly
>>>>>>>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>>>>> >> appreciate
>>>>>>>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>>>>> >> don't
>>>>>>>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>>>>> >beliefs,
>>>>>>>>>> >you
>>>>>>>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>>>>utter
>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Too many challenges
>>>>
>>>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>>>
>>>A complete waste of time.
>>
>> Every one of them is
>
>a complete waste of time.

You lost again, proving again that you are a liar.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:19:15 -0000, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic
>> time-waster, lied:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>>>>>>>> dh once again explained:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>>>>> No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>>>>> Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>>>>> utter
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.
>>>>>> Too many challenges
>>>>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.
>>>> A complete waste of time.
>>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to
>> No, ****wit. You are no challenge to anyone, ****wit, certainly not
>> to Dutch. You have no ability, and Dutch has quite a lot.
>
> LOL

Uh-huh. Except we know you're not laughing, ****wit.

****wit, why does your address show up as a vacant lot?
http://tinyurl.com/yrhvvf

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:48:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:10:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:15:21 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those
>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>>>>>>>>> a fantasy
>>>>>>>>>> No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>>>>>>>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you
>>>>>>>> utter them.
>>>>>>> I challenge either of you

You are no challenge at all, ****wit.


>>>>>> Too many challenges

Too much time-wasting...


>>>>> Every one of them is beyond your ability to meet.

No, ****wit. *No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
is beyond Dutch's or my ability, ****wit. Dutch and I
both are more capable in every aspect of life than you.
Dutch owns multiple properties in Canada, you
****wit, while you split your time between a vacant lot
in Kennesaw (http://tinyurl.com/yrhvvf) and a leaky
rusting houseboat on Lake Lanier.


>>>> A complete waste of time.
>>> Every one of them is
>> a complete waste of time.
>
> You lost again

He kicked your pimply cracker ass again.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:51:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>>> this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>>
>>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>>
>>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>>sophism.
>>>In short, bull-crap.
>>
>> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
>> can't appreciate how.
>
>The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
>bull-crap.

That's a lie.

>>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>>
>>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>>>ALL
>>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>>
>>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>>
>>>Good,
>>
>> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
>> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>>
>>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>>
>> How do you figure that
>
>If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree

It's not.

>then you
>can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for livestock.

When have I done so?

>>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>>
>>>Feel better now ****wit?
>>
>> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
>> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
>> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
>> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
>> for all these years.
>
>I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral bargaining
>chip

Yes you do. You feel that denying consideration of their lives
gives you a bigger pile of "moral bargaining chips " than you
would have if you did consider them. The fact that you believe
it is obvious, but so is the fact that you can't explain WHY you
think it does. Since you can't explain WHY you think it does,
all anyone else can do is wonder along with you WHY you feel
that way. You can't explain it because you don't understand it
....you just know you believe it because a "talking pig" told you so.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:51:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:44ai83p1flh1emm4vr6ami2234di7dabpm@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>>>> this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>>>
>>>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>>>sophism.
>>>>In short, bull-crap.
>>>
>>> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
>>> can't appreciate how.
>>
>>The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
>>bull-crap.
>
> That's a lie.

It's the plain unadulterated truth, something with which you have little
aquaintance.

>>>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they
>>>>>>believe
>>>>>>ALL
>>>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>>>
>>>>Good,
>>>
>>> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
>>> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>>>
>>>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>>>
>>> How do you figure that
>>
>>If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree
>
> It's not.

You just said the opposite right above.

>>then you
>>can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for
>>livestock.
>
> When have I done so?

When have you not?

>>>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry
>>>>> for
>>>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>Feel better now ****wit?
>>>
>>> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
>>> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
>>> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
>>> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
>>> for all these years.
>>
>>I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral
>>bargaining
>>chip
>
> Yes you do.

Nope, the Logic of the Larder tells YOU that. There is no moral importance
(i.e. bargaining chip) to the fact that animals "get to experience life"
because we raise them for food. None, zero. It's YOU who is making it a
moral issue, YOU.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:21:59 GMT, Goo wrote:

>*No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
>is beyond Dutch's or my ability

Goober some of the things I repeatedly challenged
you to do which are beyond your ability, are 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. "

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and chronic time-waster, lied:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:21:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> *No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
>> is beyond Dutch's or my ability
>
> Rudy some of the things I repeatedly challenged

No challenge. You pose no challenge at all, ****wit.
You couldn't challenge a half-dead worm.

On Jul 10, 4:33 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
> always and chronic time-waster, lied:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:21:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >> *No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
> >> is beyond Dutch's or my ability
>
> > Rudy some of the things I repeatedly challenged
>
> No challenge. You pose no challenge at all, ****wit.
> You couldn't challenge a half-dead worm.



If it's no challenge Goo, why can't you address this on a point by
point basis?

What the *HELL* is wrong with you Goo!?

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:05:04 -0700, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass > wrote:

>On Jul 10, 4:33 pm, Goo wrote:
>> dh pointed out:
>> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> *No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
>> >> is beyond Dutch's or my ability
>>
>> > Goo, some of the things I repeatedly challenged
>>
>> No challenge. You pose no challenge at all, ****wit.
>> You couldn't challenge a half-dead worm.
>
>
>
>If it's no challenge Goo, why can't you address this on a point by
>point basis?
>
>What the *HELL* is wrong with you Goo!?

Dude, I think there's something wrong with the Goober.

On Jul 15, 2:03 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:05:04 -0700, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 10, 4:33 pm, Goo wrote:
> >> dh pointed out:
> >> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> *No* contrived "challenge" you may issue
> >> >> is beyond Dutch's or my ability
>
> >> > Goo, some of the things I repeatedly challenged
>
> >> No challenge. You pose no challenge at all, ****wit.
> >> You couldn't challenge a half-dead worm.
>
> >If it's no challenge Goo, why can't you address this on a point by
> >point basis?
>
> >What the *HELL* is wrong with you Goo!?
>
> Dude, I think there's something wrong with the Goober.




I think you clobbered him senseless with the "19 challenges".





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -