 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
Goo outstupids himself yet again (was: Attn: "marques de sade"...)
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 a stupid Goober stupidly lied:
>dh pointed out: > >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:42:12 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote: >> >>> the arguments that i made >>> were not about pre-existence but simply about 'life is valuable.' >> >> That's my argument. > >That is *not* your argument. That's an amusingly blatant lie Goob, and such a very stupid one! If you didn't know that my argument is about the value of life, then you would not have tried to present arguments opposing that idea *which you did!*: First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value to any animal, including humans. - Goo Life is not a benefit for farm animals. - Goo Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity. - Goo An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it. - Goo The animals don't gain anything from living. - Goo Being born is not a benefit in any way. - Goo Life is not a gain - Goo EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was - Goo Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make them better off than before - Goo Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" - Goo "getting to experience life" is not a benefit. - Goo No animal benefits from being born. Period. - Goo Obviously you know it is my argument or you would not have attempted to argue against it, you stupid Goober. You continue to outstupid yourself time after time, Goo. |
|
Posted to alt.satanism,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goo outstupids himself yet again (was: Attn: "marques de sade"...)
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, our pitiful Goober stupidly continued:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:07 -0500, dh@. wrote: > >>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 a stupid Goober stupidly lied: >> >>>dh pointed out: >>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:42:12 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote: >>>> >>>>> the arguments that i made >>>>> were not about pre-existence but simply about 'life is valuable.' >>>> >>>> That's my argument. >>> >>>That is *not* your argument. >> >> That's an amusingly blatant lie Goob, and such a very >>stupid one! If you didn't know that my argument is about >>the value of life, then you would not have tried to present >>arguments opposing that idea *which you did!*: >> >>First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value >>to any animal, including humans. - Goo >> >>Life is not a benefit for farm animals. - Goo >> >>Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity. - Goo >> >>An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it. - Goo >> >>The animals don't gain anything from living. - Goo >> >>Being born is not a benefit in any way. - Goo >> >>Life is not a gain - Goo >> >>EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one >>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the >>"pre-existence" state was - Goo >> >>Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does >>not make them better off than before - Goo >> >>Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" - Goo >> >>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit. - Goo >> >>No animal benefits from being born. Period. - Goo >> >>Obviously you know it is my argument or you would not >>have attempted to argue against it, you stupid Goober. >>You continue to outstupid yourself time after time, Goo. > >Not a lie at all Why do you think you stupidly argued against something that you even more stupidly and dishonestly try to insist is not my argument then Goo, do you have any clue? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
