Rupert kicks the Goos' collective asses.
 

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert

Excellent point, and simply by pointing that fact out you have
kicked the Goos' collective asses. They have no argument against
it, and any attempt they make trying to present one will be at "best"
amusing absurdity. Congratulations on kicking the Goobers' asses!

Rupert kicks the Goos' collective asses.
 

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Goo lied about proof though there isn't even any evidence:

>On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:31:03 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
>>that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>
>> Excellent point,

>No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
>prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better".

Even if he can't explain it the point remains solid, Goo.

>It
>just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
>"good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".

What it means Goober, is that it's better for some animals to
experience their lives than it would be for them not to even if
there is some positive value to any supposed "state" of
pre-existence, and most especially if there is none.

>Note, Goo, that rupie is *NOT* agreeing with you.

He's new to the concept, Goo. I've been familiar with it
for over 20 years, but it's new to him. You can't comprehend
it at all Goober, so any ideas you might have on the topic
are necessarily the most ignorant and stupid, since you are
completely stupid and ignorant in regards to the fact itself.

>You insist, stupidly
>and irrationally and *WRONGLY*, that it is "better for the animals" that
>they exist. It is not; it is proved that it is not; that it *cannot* be.

It has only been claimed by you Goober, with absolutely
nothing to back it up. You have never been able to explain,
nor will you ever be, exactly how you believe pre-existent
entities or/and the supposed pre-existent "state" prevent
existing animals from benefitting from their existence. You
can't even explain how you think you think the prevention
takes place, Goo. If you really think you think "it is proved
that it is not; that it *cannot* be", then try providing evidence
of that having been proved. Go:

(Correct prediction: Contrary to his boasting of it having
been done, the Goober will be unable to present any
example(s) of what it is he thinks he's trying to talkd about.)

>>and simply by pointing that fact out you have
>>kicked the Goos' collective asses. They have no argument against
>>it, and any attempt they make trying to present one will be at "best"
>>amusing absurdity. Congratulations on kicking the Goobers' asses!

The incredible cluelessness ("what's good"?) of a stupid Goober
 

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Goo presented an easy challenge:

>On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:09:35 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Goo lied:
>>
>>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo lied:
>>
>>>>> dh quoted Rupert, then pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>>>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
>>>>>> that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>>>>> Excellent point,
>>>>> No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
>>>>> prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better". It
>>>>> just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
>>>>> "good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did say what is good, I said it's good, other things equal, if a
>>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.
>>>
>>>You can't say what's good about it.
>>
>> Try saying what's good about anything Goo. Go:
>
>You try it, ****wit.

It's good for young calves to enjoy nursing from their mothers.
It's good for them to experience the delicious flavor, the warm
soothing perfect temperature (especially on a cold day...BETTER
than hot chocolate), the feel of the liquid going down their throat
and entering their stomach, and to taste their mother in the
milk (and probably every time they burp) getting the warm fuzzy
feelings of love and safety that it inspires. Etc, Goo.

>>>You can't even give a ****ing clue.
>>
>> Try giving a ****ing clue that you have some idea how
>>anything could be good about anything Goober. Go:
>
>You try it, ****wit.

It is good for young calves to experience the pleasures of
nursing. It's also good FOR YOUNG CALVES to experience
lives of positive value, and all the experiences which give it
possitive value, you poor clueless Goober.

>You're even more clueless than His Wobbliness.

I know a lot more about things that are good for animals
than he does apparently Goob, but both of us know WAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY more than you do now or ever
will. Of course at this point you've demonstrated that you are
completely clueless about how anything could be good for any
animal, clearly showing yourself to be on the most ignorant level
a person can be on. You are, necessarily, the most clueless a
person can be Goober. I challenge you to try rising above the
lowest possible level where you currently are stuck, and try to
think of some way something could be good for an animal Goo.
Go:

>>> You're completely incoherent.
>>
>> Show that you're not incoherent by explaining how
>>anything could be good about something Goo. Go:
>>
>>>In fact, in absolute terms, there's nothing good about it at all.
>>
>> Try explaining how you think anything could be good about
>>anything Goo. Go:

Rupert really should explain to the stupid Goober
 

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Goo wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 8:38 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>> dh quoted Rupert, then pointed out:
>>>>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>>>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
>>>>>> that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>>>>> Excellent point,
>>>>> No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
>>>>> prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better". It
>>>>> just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
>>>>> "good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".
>>>> I did say what is good, I said it's good, other things equal, if a
>>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.
>>> You can't say what's good about it. You can't even give a ****ing clue.
>>> You're completely incoherent.
>>>
>>> In fact, in absolute terms, there's nothing good about it at all.
>>
>> As observed, explanations have to run out somewhere. I say it is good
>> if there are more pleasant experiences. I cannot say what is good
>> about it.
>
>Then, as I have said, you haven't said anything.

More good is more good Goo. It's a math thing. You can't get
it, but most of us can. If he can't explain something so simple and
obvious as more=more, and/or that in some cases more=better,
then I hope whatever he's doing his thesis on is even more simple
than that. But damn Goob, even though you're giving every indication
of being too stupid to understand even the easiest of concepts, you
are right that he should give you an explanation even if he only
keeps pasting the same thing for you over and over. Stupid fools
like yourself are what stock answers were invented for Goo, so Rupert
should still provide you with an explanation even though you've shown
yourself far too stupid to comprehend any answers.

The pureness of Dutch's selfishness is a restrictive mental disorder
 

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:09:45 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:

>>Rupert wrote:

>>>Toby Ord has given me some resources to look at in the field of
>>>axiology;
>>
>> I've given you some resources to look at in the fields of
>>reality.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!

I've suggested that you think about the animals as well but
also point out that the purity of your selfishness won't allow you
to consider the animals at all, much less go and see how life
could be of value to them or anything else to do with consideration
OF THEM.

>>Go out and look at some cattle, and think about what
>>it would be like to be each individual animals, every minute of
>>every day, week after week, month after month...
>
>"If I didn't eat burgers, animals like this wouldn't
>exist."

There's a lot more to it than that, but being as purely selfish
as you are that's as far as you're able to go with it in the direction
of the animals, which is nowhere at all really. The purity of your
own selfishness is a mental disorder which prevents you from
considering the animals, and of course thereby prevents you from
being able to consider whether or not different practices are cruel
TO THEM.

>>That's the
>>only way you can really get any idea what we're really talking
>>about, but you'll probably never do it.
>>
>>>I will do some reading
>>
>> Have some first hand observation and maybe some
>>interaction. It can teach you things no amount of reading
>>will be able to.
>
>Logic of the Larder - circular sophism

Considering the animals is a necessary part of considering
the animals. Lying to yourself that it's not is some form of
insanity, and likely to be associated with more than one.
Duh.

Goo can't do the math
 

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Rupert pointed out:
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:
>>
>>>> dh pointed out:
>
>No "pointing out".

LOL! What a stupid Goober!!!

>>>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
>>>>> that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>>>> Excellent point,
>>>> No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
>>>> prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better". It
>>>> just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
>>>> "good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".
>>>>
>>> I did say what is good,
>
>You didn't say what makes it good.

Whether he did or not you've shown that you can't comprehend
what makes it good for anything, Goo.

>>> I said it's good, other things equal, if a
>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.
>>
>> It's pretty obvious by itself.
>
>No. No, it sure isn't.

Goo, what do you think you would gain if you could get me to
believe you really are that stupid, do you have any idea? Tell me
Goober: WHAT do you think you would gain???

>Neither he nor you can make even a tiny bit of
>progress saying what's good about a being existing,

When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo. It has to
do with easy definitions of words and some simple math like:
more = more, but even though it's all easy you've shown that you're
too stupid to have the first clue about any of it. Maybe you really are
Goo as you insist, so if you really are too stupid to comprehend what
do you think you could gaing by having people continue to explain?
Could you really be too stupid to understand that you can't understand
things you're too stupid to understand? It's certainly beginning to look
like you are.

>versus never existing.

You claim to be too stupid to understand at all Goo.

>>> I don't have to explain why that's the case.
>
>Yes, you most certainly do.
>
>
>>> Explanation has to stop
>>> somewhere.
>
>Not there.
>
>
>>
>> Goo never tries to explain,
>
>Goo always explains: lucidly, factually, comprehensively.

Then try explaining how you think pre-existence
prevents existing things from benefitting from their
existence Goo. Go:

>>> I will do some reading
>>
>> Have some first hand observation and maybe some
>> interaction.
>
>Haw haw haw! Like you did, at the petting zoo

I've had it with lots of things Goo, including some
animals I raised, killed and ate. In contrast to that:
You have had it with none, never will, and can't
even comprehend the idea.

Goo can't do the math
 

<dh@.> wrote

> When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.

A good life is good *for them* provided and because they exist, better than
a shit life, you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*, you can't. If
they never exist, nothing is lost, nothing is worse or better.

Goo can't do the math
 

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
>> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.
>
>A good life is good *for them*

Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard
that very significant aspect of the situation.

>provided and because they exist,

Not because they exist but because we consider things of
positive value to be good. If they exist and their life is of negative
value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the
lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS. You
can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is
"sick".

>better than a shit life,

Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't
consider the difference between good lives and bad without
feeling dirty and sick.

>you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,

A life of positive value is good because we consider things
of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good

>you can't.

The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering
what's good for beings other than yourself, restricting you from
being able to appreciate when animals have lives of positive
value and from making a distinction between when they do
and when they don't. People who aren't so mentally
challenged can easily do what is impossible for you.

Goo can't do the math
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
>>> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.
>>
>>A good life is good *for them*
>
> Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard
> that very significant aspect of the situation.

Not at all.
>
>>provided and because they exist,
>
> Not because they exist

Yes, only because they exist.

> but because we consider things of
> positive value to be good.

Good *for them* only if they exist.

> If they exist and their life is of negative
> value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the
> lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS.

Right, for them, always *for them*, it has nothing to do with us.

You
> can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
> feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is
> "sick".

No, you don't have it yet.

>
>>better than a shit life,
>
> Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't
> consider the difference between good lives and bad without
> feeling dirty and sick.

No, you still aren't getting it.

>
>>you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,
>
> A life of positive value is good because we consider things
> of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good
>
>>you can't.
>
> The purity of your selfishness

Nope, you don't have it yet.

Goo can't do the math
 

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008, Goo most idiotically wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>> provided and because they exist,
>>
>> Not because they exist but because we consider things of
>> positive value to be good.
>
>*ONLY* for beings that exist.

LOL! Only an idiot would write something like that, Goober,
since only an idiot would feel any need to.

>>> better than a shit life,
>>
>> Since you can't take good lives into consideration
>
>False. He does, Goo.
>
>
>>> you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,
>>
>> A life of positive value is good
>
>Only for an entity that exists.

LOL! Only an idiot Goo...only an idiot like you.

Goo can't do the math
 

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:16:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:35:58 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
>>>> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.
>>>
>>>A good life is good *for them*
>>
>> Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard
>>that very significant aspect of the situation.
>>
>>>provided and because they exist,
>>
>> Not because they exist but because we consider things of
>>positive value to be good.
>
>Good *for them* only if they exist.

Duh, you poor idiot.

>>If they exist and their life is of negative
>>value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the
>>lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS. You
>>can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
>>feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is
>>"sick".
>
>No, you don't have it yet.

That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.

>>>better than a shit life,
>>
>> Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't
>>consider the difference between good lives and bad without
>>feeling dirty and sick.
>>
>>>you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,
>>
>> A life of positive value is good because we consider things
>>of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good
>>
>>>you can't.
>>
>> The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering
>>what's good for beings other than yourself, restricting you from
>>being able to appreciate when animals have lives of positive
>>value and from making a distinction between when they do
>>and when they don't. People who aren't so mentally
>>challenged can easily do what is impossible for you.
>
>Nope, you don't have it yet.

That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.