****wit David Harrison stuck a gerbil up his ass:


>>> Sometimes you agree with yourself Prof. Plimpton and
>>
>> I always agree with myself

All of the below are true, you defeated illiterate cracker.


>
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> of consideration." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> moral consideration, and is given none" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
> consideration" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> a benefit at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> existing animals enjoy living." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
> aspects of their lives." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
> existing entities" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
> . . .
>> I always know what I'm saying.
>
> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> existence we know" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Intent doesn't matter" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> consideration." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:39:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
>>> >> >> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>>> >> >> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>>>
>>> >> >> >I never said anything about rice.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
>>> >> >> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
>>> >> >> produce none.
>>>
>>> >> >> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>>> >> >> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
>>> >> >> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
>>> >> >> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>>>
>>> >> >> >> *Now
>>> >> >> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>> >> >> >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>> >> >> >> CDs than the beef.
>>>
>>> >> >> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>> >> >> >evidence one way or the other.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
>>> >> >> far along with it, doctor?
>>>
>>> >> >If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
>>> >> >serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
>>> >> >death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
>>> >> >should stop making that claim.
>>>
>>> >> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
>>> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
>>> >> sometimes involves less.
>>>
>>> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?
>>>
>>> * * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
>>> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
>>> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
>>> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
>>> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
>>> they've been killed off in the past.
>>>
>>> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
>>> >with one serving of tofu.
>>>
>>> * * So do you.
>>
>>Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
>>estimate to back them up.
>
> You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
>up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
>are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.

It appears I was correct about that.

>>> >If you do not have any idea of any range
>>> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
>>> >comparisons.
>>>
>>> * * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
>>> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
>>> anything about.
>>> . . .
>>>
>>
>>Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
>>food products require more crop production,
>
> If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
>products, not a reason not to.
>. . .
>>I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
>>replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
>>think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
>>grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
>>position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
>>position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
>>stop making the claim.
>
> I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
>products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
>this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting
>line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
>yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
>move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
>yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
>that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
>when it does not.

Try to get to the starting line. It will be uncomfortable for you, but will
make you a better person if you can ever get there.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1g5dl71ri9t5mok0io0hg6uj9sapuoktm4@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>>
>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>>> animals." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>>
>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>>>
>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>> stupidity, do
>>> you have any clue at all?
>>
>>Thanks for
>
> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything
> to
> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
> idea up
> with.

It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
misinterpreted all of them.

On Mar 13, 8:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> >> >> >> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >> >> >> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> >> >> >> >I never said anything about rice.
>
> >> >> >> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
> >> >> >> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
> >> >> >> produce none.
>
> >> >> >> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >> >> >> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
> >> >> >> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
> >> >> >> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
> >> >> >> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>
> >> >> >> >> *Now
> >> >> >> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >> >> >> >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >> >> >> >> CDs than the beef.
>
> >> >> >> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >> >> >> >evidence one way or the other.
>
> >> >> >> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
> >> >> >> far along with it, doctor?
>
> >> >> >If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
> >> >> >serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
> >> >> >death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
> >> >> >should stop making that claim.
>
> >> >> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
> >> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
> >> >> sometimes involves less.
>
> >> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?
>
> >> * * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
> >> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
> >> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
> >> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
> >> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
> >> they've been killed off in the past.
>
> >> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
> >> >with one serving of tofu.
>
> >> * * So do you.
>
> >Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
> >estimate to back them up.
>
> * * You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
> up with an estimate of your own.

What I am doing is asking you to provide evidence to support your
claims. This is a reasonable request. It does not require me to come
up with an estimate of my own. That is not my job.

However, Steven Davis quoted two studies which estimated that the
mortality rate for field mice in the course of one year's harvesting
is between 52% and 77%, so he settles for a figure of 60% and uses an
estimate of 25 field mice per hectare used in one of the studies, to
conclude that 15 collateral deaths per hectare occur each year.

Furthermore, Matheny tells us that one hectare of soy and corn can
produce 1000 kg of protein and that an adult needs 20 kg of protein
per year. Let's divide that by 365 to get one serving. That's less
than 0.0001.

So there you are. That's an estimate.

> You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
> are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.
>
> >> >If you do not have any idea of any range
> >> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
> >> >comparisons.
>
> >> * * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
> >> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
> >> anything about.
> >> . . .
>
> >Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
> >food products require more crop production,
>
> * * If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
> products, not a reason not to.
>

I never said it was a reason not to buy grass raised products. I don't
see how it's a reason either way.

.. . .
>
> >I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
> >replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
> >think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
> >grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
> >position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
> >position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
> >stop making the claim.
>
> * * I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
> products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
> this particular issue.

So how are you in a position to know? On the basis of what evidence?

> You still have not been able to even get to the starting
> line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
> yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
> move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
> yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
> that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
> when it does not.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:1g5dl71ri9t5mok0io0hg6uj9sapuoktm4@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>>>> animals." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>>> stupidity, do
>>>> you have any clue at all?
>>>
>>>Thanks for
>>
>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything
>> to
>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
>> idea up
>> with.
>
>It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
>misinterpreted all of them.

The Goober himself said they were all true. Do you think he really disagrees
with himself about that?

****wit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>>>>> deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>>>> /contaminated/
>>>>>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>>>>> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>>>> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how you continue to insist that he a<sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Prof. Plimpton's claims are my
>>>>> stupidity, do you have any clue at all?

This beloved construction of yours - "How do you [****wit mangled
syntax], do you have...?" is perfectly emblematic of your stupidity and
virtual illiteracy.


>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..
>>>
>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Prof. Plimpton's claims
>>> have anything to
>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
>>> idea up
>>> with.
>>
>> It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
>> misinterpreted all of them.
>
> Prof. Plimpton himself said they were all true.

They are, but you still misconstrued them and misinterpreted them.


> Do you think he really disagrees with himself about that?

Another classic ****wittism!

The quotes are true statements, even though you mangled some of them.
The original are all true statements. For example, what I really wrote
for one of them is:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.

which you have mangled - because you are a dishonest shitbag - to read

then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.


You're dishonest and a liar. We have always known that about you, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>newso8il75oju16vkc4ot4cust6bknqie2c96@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:1g5dl71ri9t5mok0io0hg6uj9sapuoktm4@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill
>>>>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What
>>>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>>>>> animals." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>>>> stupidity, do
>>>>> you have any clue at all?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for
>>>
>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
>>> anything
>>> to
>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
>>> idea up
>>> with.
>>
>>It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
>>and
>>misinterpreted all of them.
>
> The Goober himself said they were all true.

They are accurate statements, for example, "giving them life does NOT
mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an ARA
mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:17:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>>>>> stupidity, do
>>>>>> you have any clue at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for
>>>>
>>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
>>>> anything
>>>> to
>>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
>>>> idea up
>>>> with.
>>>
>>>It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
>>>and
>>>misinterpreted all of them.
>>
>> The Goober himself said they were all true.
>
>They are accurate statements

You whine because I quoted the Goober making what you yourself claim are
"accurate statements". What freak.

>, for example, "giving them life does NOT
>mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an ARA
>mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
>farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.

He let us know that he does, you moron. It's too late to lie about it now,
YOU IDIOT.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:17:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:8f6vl7t58a8b5hup82daqci7rtodia1nv5@4ax. com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>>>>>> stupidity, do
>>>>>>> you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for
>>>>>
>>>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
>>>>> anything
>>>>> to
>>>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the
>>>>> stupid
>>>>> idea up
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>>It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
>>>>and
>>>>misinterpreted all of them.
>>>
>>> The Goober himself said they were all true.
>>
>>They are accurate statements
>
> You whine because I quoted the Goober making what you yourself claim
> are
> "accurate statements". What freak.

You quoted them to demonstrate something that they do not demonstrate.

>>, for example, "giving them life does NOT
>>mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
>>ARA
>>mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>>strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
>>farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.
>
> He let us know that he does, you moron. It's too late to lie about it
> now,
> YOU IDIOT.

No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind. He is saying
that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
believe system. He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
except you knows that.

You are REALLY stupid.

On Mar 10, 5:16*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 6:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > *wrote:
>
> >>>> One. *Big ****ing deal. *Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
> >>>> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
> >>>> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
> >>>> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
> >>>> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.
>
> >>> You didn't establish any such thing.
>
> >> It is established.
>
> > Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
> > assert it?
>
> It's established. *You know it is.
>

That's not an answer to the question.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
> >>>> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
> >>>> * * You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. *You try,
> >>>> but you fail. *You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
> >>>> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
> >>>> it's nothing but your childish feelings.
>
> >>>> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. *You don't want to eat
> >>>> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
> >>>> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
> >>>> hen mommy who lost her eggs. *But because your cooked vegetable mush
> >>>> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
> >>>> children - can easily ignore them. *Out of sight, out of mind.
>
> >>>> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
> >>>> people view you as emotional children.
>
> >>> You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.
>
> >> You don't.
>
> > And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system.
>
> You do.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:02:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:17:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:8f6vl7t58a8b5hup82daqci7rtodia1nv5@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>>>>>>>> stupidity, do
>>>>>>>> you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the
>>>>>> stupid
>>>>>> idea up
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
>>>>>and
>>>>>misinterpreted all of them.
>>>>
>>>> The Goober himself said they were all true.
>>>
>>>They are accurate statements
>>
>> You whine because I quoted the Goober making what you yourself claim
>> are
>> "accurate statements". What freak.
>
>You quoted them to demonstrate something that they do not demonstrate.

If you want people to think the Gooberdoodle disagrees with himself about
any of his quotes that you both claim are true, try to explain which one(s) and
why you want people to think he disagrees.

>>>, for example, "giving them life does NOT
>>>mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
>>>ARA
>>>mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>>>strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
>>>farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.
>>
>> He let us know that he does, you moron. It's too late to lie about it
>> now,
>> YOU IDIOT.
>
>No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
>within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind.

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo

>He is saying
>that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
>believe system.

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

>He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
>except you knows that.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch

"It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
killing them." - "Dutch"

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"

>You are REALLY stupid.

"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years." - "Dutch"

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - "Dutch"

<dh@.> wrote
> If you want people to think the Gooberdoodle disagrees with himself

Take a remedial thinking course.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober - mangled some more quotes into
pseudo-quotes and lied:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:02:15 -0700, > wrote:


>>>> , for example, "giving them life does NOT
>>>> mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
>>>> ARA
>>>> mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>>>> strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
>>>> farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.
>>>
>>> He let us know that he does,

No, Goo. What I wrote said exactly the opposite, Goo. Everyone knows
it, Goo, including you.


>>
>> No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
>> within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind.
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the
> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

True.


>
> ""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
> of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests."

That's a mangled pseudo-quote, of course. Here's the full statement:

"aras" confront him with a truth that ****wit cannot address:
that ****wit's consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.


You had to mangle it in order to try to lie, ****wit, but as usual you
were caught and defeated.


>
>> He is saying
>> that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
>> believe system.
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."

True.

> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
> in self defense. There's your answer. "

Another mangled, out-of-context pseudo-quote from ****wit, THE Goober.
In fact, that statement was given as an answer, with some additional
words that you unethically removed, to a ****witted question you posed,
****wit (is there any other kind from you?):

****wit David Harrison, THE Goober:
I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would be
better not to raise animals to eat.

Wilson Woods:
They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.

So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
Goober, it was someone telling you what "aras" say. But being an
unethical fighting-dog breeder, you had to mangle it unethically. You
lose again, ****wit: You always lose.

>
> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
> results from killing them."

Actual statement:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.


You unethically edited again, fighting-dog-breeder ****wit.


>
>> He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
>> except you knows that.
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it."
>
> "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
> exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

Not a quote.


> "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
> as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch

Not a quote.


>
> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
> killing them." - "Dutch"

Not a quote.


> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
> life." - Dutch

Out-of-context quote. Full text:

You cannot explain why anyone who consumes animal products should
think that it's anything special that they promote livestock to
"experience life". Every consumer choice promotes animals to
experience life. Consuming grain promotes life, and death.
Abstaining from meat promotes animal life other than livestock.
When you single out livestock for moral consideration you commit
the exact same fallacy that vegans do, you just do it in reverse.


> "Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"

Out-of-context quote. Full text:

Life does not justify death, more to the point, life does not
justify killing. If it did, parents who kill their children could
introduce it in court as a factor in their favour. The fact that
we raise livestock with the *intention* of killing them does not
change it, we still cannot ethically use *life itself* as a
justification for killing.


>
> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"

Out of context mangling of an answer to ****wit's comment.

****wit David Harrison, THE Goober:
If you didn't want people to think veganism does save farm
animals etc,


Dutch:
If you wish to use that vernacular, and you do, then veganism
*does* savefarm animals [from the vegan viewpoint from a life of
misery]. If you are going to argue that continuing meat
consumption allows future animals to be born [from your viewpoint
to experience a potentially decent life] then vegans can argue
that abstaining from meat saves future animals from life


>
>> You are REALLY stupid.
>
> "you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
> for years." - "Dutch"

Out-of-context mangled pseudo-quote. Full text:

If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're
an ARA and you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years.


From now on, ****wit, all of your tedious pseudo-quotes are just
dismissed. There will be no more corrections. Your allegations of
"quotes" are just summarily dismissed, because you're a known unethical
editor and liar.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, George Plimpton >
wrote:

>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober - mangled some more quotes into
>pseudo-quotes and lied:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:02:15 -0700, > wrote:
>
>
>>>>> , for example, "giving them life does NOT
>>>>> mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
>>>>> ARA
>>>>> mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>>>>> strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
>>>>> farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.
>>>>
>>>> He let us know that he does,
>
>No, Goo. What I wrote said exactly the opposite, Goo. Everyone knows
>it, Goo, including you.
>
>
>>>
>>> No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
>>> within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind.
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the
>> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> ""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
>> of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests."
>
>That's a mangled pseudo-quote, of course. Here's the full statement:
>
> "aras" confront him with a truth that ****wit cannot address:
> that ****wit's consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>
>
>You had to mangle it in order to try to lie, ****wit, but as usual you
>were caught and defeated.
>
>
>>
>>> He is saying
>>> that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
>>> believe system.
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
>True.
>
>> "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>> words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>> in self defense. There's your answer. "
>
>Another mangled, out-of-context pseudo-quote from ****wit, THE Goober.
>In fact, that statement was given as an answer, with some additional
>words that you unethically removed, to a ****witted question you posed,
>****wit (is there any other kind from you?):
>
> ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober:
> I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would be
> better not to raise animals to eat.
>
> Wilson Woods:
> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
> your answer.
>
>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>Goober, it was someone telling you what "aras" say. But being an
>unethical fighting-dog breeder, you had to mangle it unethically. You
>lose again, ****wit: You always lose.
>
>>
>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>> results from killing them."
>
>Actual statement:
>
> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
>
>You unethically edited again, fighting-dog-breeder ****wit.
>
>
>>
>>> He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
>>> except you knows that.
>>
>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>> consideration, and gets it."
>>
>> "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
>> exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>> "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
>> as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>>
>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
>> killing them." - "Dutch"
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
>> life." - Dutch
>
>Out-of-context quote. Full text:
>
> You cannot explain why anyone who consumes animal products should
> think that it's anything special that they promote livestock to
> "experience life". Every consumer choice promotes animals to
> experience life. Consuming grain promotes life, and death.
> Abstaining from meat promotes animal life other than livestock.
> When you single out livestock for moral consideration you commit
> the exact same fallacy that vegans do, you just do it in reverse.
>
>
>> "Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"
>
>Out-of-context quote. Full text:
>
> Life does not justify death, more to the point, life does not
> justify killing. If it did, parents who kill their children could
> introduce it in court as a factor in their favour. The fact that
> we raise livestock with the *intention* of killing them does not
> change it, we still cannot ethically use *life itself* as a
> justification for killing.
>
>
>>
>> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>
>Out of context mangling of an answer to ****wit's comment.
>
> ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober:
> If you didn't want people to think veganism does save farm
> animals etc,
>
>
> Dutch:
> If you wish to use that vernacular, and you do, then veganism
> *does* savefarm animals [from the vegan viewpoint from a life of
> misery]. If you are going to argue that continuing meat
> consumption allows future animals to be born [from your viewpoint
> to experience a potentially decent life] then vegans can argue
> that abstaining from meat saves future animals from life
>
>
>>
>>> You are REALLY stupid.
>>
>> "you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>> for years." - "Dutch"
>
>Out-of-context mangled pseudo-quote. Full text:
>
> If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're
> an ARA and you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
> for years.
>
>
> From now on, ****wit, all of your tedious pseudo-quotes are just
>dismissed. There will be no more corrections. Your allegations of
>"quotes" are just summarily dismissed, because you're a known unethical
>editor and liar.

In February 2005 I made a new post titled, "Jonathan's quotes - posted
for Harrison's future reference"

"animals have a "right" to be born. It's true"
Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy

"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights, but being dishonest without a care
he still held them to be true and tried to discredit you with them.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:

> Wilson Woods:
> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
> your answer.
>
>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,

You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
.. . .
>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>> results from killing them."
>
>Actual statement:
>
> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> prevent the harm that results from killing them.

Goober we know you DO believe that:

the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
all.

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". They don't because there is no
alternative. They don't because they don't care
that they "get to experience life". They don't
because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo

"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>In February 2005 I made a new post titled, "Jonathan's [Goo's] quotes - posted
>for Harrison's future reference"
>
>"animals have a "right" to be born. It's true"
> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy
>
> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>
> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>
> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>
> "animals have rights."
> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>
> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
> poisoned."
> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>
>Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>impression of your true position responded with,
>
> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>
>He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that. Go:

****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Prof. Geo. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Wilson Woods:
>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>> your answer.
>>
>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>
> You told us the way you feel about it

No, I told you the way "vegans"/"aras" feel about it. I'm neither.


>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>> results from killing them."
>>
>> Actual statement:
>>
>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
> George we know you DO believe that:

No. I was saying what "vegans"/"aras" believe. I'm not either one of
those.

On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>
>> In February 2005 I made a new post titled, "Jonathan's [Goo's] quotes - posted
>> for Harrison's future reference"
>>
>> "animals have a "right" to be born. It's true"
>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy

What the statement actually says:

[****wit] frequently accuses others of "lying" about what he says,
when all they have done is point out the implications of what he
has said. A case in point is his recent whining about someone
having said that he ([****wit]) believes animals have a "right" to
be born. It's true, he never literally said that. It's a
reasonable and fair interpretation of what he has said. He rants
on and on about it being a good thing - a benefit - if the
"billions of meat animals" are born and "get to experience life".


There. You were played for a fool, which is just what you are. Derek
completely hosed you.


>>
>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>
>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>
>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>
>> "animals have rights."
>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>
>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>> poisoned."
>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>
>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>
>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>
>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>> the proposition of animal rights
>
> Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links. Read them. Shut up and read them. Every
one of them proves you're a ****witted fool.

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> Wilson Woods:
>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>> your answer.
>>>
>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>
>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>. . .
>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>> results from killing them."
>>>
>>>Actual statement:
>>>
>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>
>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>
>>the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>all.
>>
>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>with never existing." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>
>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>
>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>never existing." - Goo
>>
>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>
>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>to humans " - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>
>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>
>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>
>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>
>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>to them" - Goo
>>
>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>
>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>
>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>that entity." - Goo
>
>No.

So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo? If so, what
made you change your mind?
If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>
>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>
>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>
>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>
>>> "animals have rights."
>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>
>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>> poisoned."
>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>
>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>
>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>
>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>
>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>
>The proof is in the links.

There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:

>>>
>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>> your answer.
>>>>
>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>
>>> You told us the way you feel about it

No, ****wit. I told you how "vegans" feel about it. I'm not one, of
course, and you've always known it.


>>> . . .
>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>
>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>
>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>
>>> we know you DO believe that:

No, ****wit. You know I *don't* believe it.


>>>
>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> No.
>
> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence

Of course not, ****wit - they don't. Coming into existence *CANNOT* be
a benefit, ****wit: it doesn't improve the entity's welfare, and that
is the definition of benefit.

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied: :

>>>

The below are all mock fake quotes from Derek that fooled you, Goober.


>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>
>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>
>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>
>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>
>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>> poisoned."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>
>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>
>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>
>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>
>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>
>> The proof is in the links.
>
> There is no proof

The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
you.

You're such a clueless idiot, Goo.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>
>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>
>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>
>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>
>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>> poisoned."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>
>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>
>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>
>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>
>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>
>>The proof is in the links.
>
> There is no proof

It's in the links I provided. You can't deny it by pretending it isn't
there. I baited you and you swallowed all of it, proving how desperate
you are to undermine his true position because you can't defend
yourself against it and him fairly.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>> your answer.
>>>>
>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>
>>> You told us the way you feel about it

No, he explained how vegans feel about it. It's more than obvious who
he was referring to when you read his entire quote.

>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>
>>>>Actual statement:
>>>>
>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>
>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>
>>>the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>with never existing." - Goo
>>>
>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>
>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>>
>>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>>
>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>
>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>>
>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>never existing." - Goo
>>>
>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>
>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>
>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>>
>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>>
>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>
>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>to humans " - Goo
>>>
>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>>
>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>
>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>
>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>>
>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>>
>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>to them" - Goo
>>>
>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>>
>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>>
>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>that entity." - Goo
>>
>>No.
>
> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence

No, he doesn't, and no amount of desperate part-quoting from you will
ever convince anyone that he does and that you're not a deliberate
liar, filthy Harrison.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>
>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>
>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>
>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>
>>>The proof is in the links.
>>
>> There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
>>yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:
>
>The p

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>
>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>. . .
>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>
>>>>>Actual statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>
>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>
>>>>the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>all.
>>>>
>>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>with never existing." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>never existing." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>to humans " - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>to them" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>that entity." - Goo
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>
>Of course not, ****wit - they don't.

Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
.. . .
>> If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."
>
>Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit

Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>
>>>> The proof is in the links.
>>>
>>> There is no proof
>>
>> The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
>> see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
>> you.
>>
>> You're such a clueless idiot, Goo.
>
> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself

The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any idea
how stupid your writing makes you appear?

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:


>>>>>
>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>
>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it

No, Goo. I told you how "vegans" feel about it, Goo.


>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> we know you DO believe that:

No, you know I *DON'T* believe it, Goo - that's why you had to mangle
the quotes.


>>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>
>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>
> Then you still agree that

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:42:53 -0700, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:06:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>>The proof is in the links.
>>>>
>>>> There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
>>>>yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:
>>>
>>>The p
>>
>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
>>explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:
>
>"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where

LOL! No you stupid Goober, "HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree
with yourself?

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:07:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actual statement:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>>>all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>with never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>to humans " - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>to them" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>that entity." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>
>>>Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>
>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>>. . .
>>>> If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."
>>>
>>>Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>
>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>
>"Ge

Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS
causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes moral
sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results
from killing them." - Goo





>****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it
>
>No, Goo. I told you how "vegans" feel about it, Goo.
>
>
>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we know you DO believe that:
>
>No, you know I *DON'T* believe it, Goo - that's why you had to mangle
>the quotes.
>
>
>>>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>
>>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>
>> Then you still agree that
>
>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, breeder of fighting dogs and corrupt
cracker liar - lied:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof is in the links.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no proof
>>>>
>>>> The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
>>>> see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> You're such a clueless idiot, Goo.
>>>
>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself
>>
>> The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.
>>
>> "want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
>> this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
>> idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?
>
> LOL! No you stupid

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:


>>>>>
>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>
>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it

No, Goo. I told you how "vegans" feel about it, Goo.


>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> we know you DO believe that:

No, you know I *DON'T* believe it, Goo - that's why you had to mangle
the quotes.


>>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>
>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>
> Then you still agree that

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

****wit David Harrison - illegal breeder of illegal fighting dogs - lied:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>> explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence G?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>>
>>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>> than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>>> . . .
>>>>> If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>> than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."
>>>>
>>>> Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>>
>>> Then you still agree that
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.
>
> Then according to yourself

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:18:00 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:53:24 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:42:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:06:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The proof is in the links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
>>>>>>yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>The p
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
>>>>explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where
>>
>> LOL! No you stupid Goober, "HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree
>>with yourself?
>
>"want people to think you disagree with yourself"

That's right Goob, if you want them to think you do. We know that you agree
with eliminationists/yourself about every bit of it Goo, but if you want people
to think that you do not then YOU need to explain how you think you disagree.
LOL...it's hilarious that you can't even make an attempt to explain what you so
obviously desperately want people to believe, Goo. LOL...you have certainly
outstupided yourself again with this one, you stupid Goober. LOL......

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:24:59 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:57:56 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:07:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Actual statement:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>>to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>>magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>>>>>all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>>>with never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>>>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>>>never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>>>to humans " - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>to them" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>>>that entity." - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>>>>. . .
>>>>>> If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."
>>>>>
>>>>>Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>>>
>>>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>>>
>>>"Ge
>>
>> Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
>>not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>killing them.
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS
>>causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>>by the animal in existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes moral
>>sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results
>>from killing them." - Goo
>
>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:18:00 -0700, Goo cluelessly maundered:

>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:53:24 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:42:53 -0700, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:06:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The proof is in the links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
>>>>>>yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>The p
>>>>
>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
>>>>explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where
>>
>> LOL! No you stupid Goober, "HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree
>>with yourself?
>
>"want people to think you disagree with yourself"

"HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree with yourself, you stupid
clueless Goober?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, breeder of fighting dogs and corrupt
cracker liar - lied:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof is in the links.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no proof
>>>>
>>>> The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
>>>> see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> You're such a clueless idiot, Goo.
>>>
>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself
>>
>> The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.
>>
>> "want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
>> this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
>> idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?
>
> LOL! No you stupid

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proof is in the links.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself
>>>>
>>>> "want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
>>>> this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
>>>> idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?
>>>
>>> LOL! No you
>>
>> "want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
>> *ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.
>
> That's right

It sure is, Goober, you ****ing sheep-pumping cracker ****wit. "want
people to think you disagree with yourself" - no educated person would
ever write shit like that.

Goo ****wit David Harrison - convicted fighting dog breeder & seller - lied:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>>>>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
>>>>>>>>>> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>>>> explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actual statement:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>>>> with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>>>>> "decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>>>> not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>>>> to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>>>> experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>>>> alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>>>> that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>>>> because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>> to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>>>> that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>> than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>>>>>>> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you still agree that
>>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.
>>>
>>> Then according to yourself
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.
>
> Then according to yourself

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

"according to yourself" - you stupid ****ing illiterate cracker: it
should be "according to you."

You're stupid, Goo - stupid beyond belief. A loser.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, breeder of fighting dogs and corrupt
cracker liar - lied:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I'm a closet "ARA"."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
>>>>>>>> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
>>>>>>>> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
>>>>>>>> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals have rights."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
>>>>>>>> poisoned."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
>>>>>>>> impression of your true position responded with,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
>>>>>>>> AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
>>>>>>>> Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
>>>>>>>> true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
>>>>>>>> David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
>>>>>>>> the proposition of animal rights
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to provide reason to believe that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof is in the links.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no proof
>>>>
>>>> The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
>>>> see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> You're such a clueless idiot, Goo.
>>>
>>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself
>>
>> The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.
>>
>> "want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
>> this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
>> idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?
>
> LOL! No you stupid

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.