Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #481 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>Goo wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>
>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Our

>>
>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>
>Already been done, multiple times.


Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
  #482 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:01:34 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:41:51 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:30:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:46:03 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:32:22 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:07:29 -0700, Goo desperately, feebly puled:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:30:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:42:24 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:19:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say WHAT specifically, and HOW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare improvement is the definition of benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think that prevents you from benefitting now Goob?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By definition
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you think the definition of benefit prevents you from benefitting now
>>>>>>>>>> Goob? Try to explain it without mentioning pre-existence, Goo. You can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Coming into existence - "getting to
>>>>>>>>> experience life" - does not improve an entity's welfare
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you think that's preventing you from benefitting now Goob?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Benefiting from your life".
>>>>
>>>> You appear to benefit from yours. What do you want people to think is
>>>>preventing you so we should feel sorry for you, do you have any clue at all?
>>>
>>>And IronyMeters

>>
>> You apparently have no clue at all, so why did you try to talk about it?

>
>He has more than a clue. He fully understands it.


Try presenting some reason to believe that Goo. Go:
  #483 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Dietary ethics

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>
>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our
>>>
>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>>
>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>
>>> You lose.

>>
>> I win.

>
> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>


"benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
it is meaningless.

hth
  #484 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:


<snip>

>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:


>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>You're an idiot.


> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.


No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #485 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 10/31/2012 2:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>
>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>> You're an idiot.

>
>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.

>
> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.


We have shown beyond dispute that one *cannot* benefit simply from
coming into existence. It is based on the definition of benefit. A
benefit is something that improves the welfare of an experiential
entity, but coming into existence does not do that - it *establishes*
the welfare - and therefore, coming into existence is not a benefit.



  #486 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:20:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our
>>>>
>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>
>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>
>>>> You lose.
>>>
>>> I win.

>>
>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>

>
>"benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>it is meaningless.


So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours, and you can't even attempt to
explain what you want people to think is preventing you from doing so.
  #487 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:52:06 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 10/31/2012 2:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>>
>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>> You're an idiot.

>>
>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.

>>
>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.


>We have shown beyond dispute that one *cannot* benefit simply from
>coming into existence. It is based on the definition of benefit. A
>benefit is something that improves the welfare of an experiential
>entity, but coming into existence does not do that - it *establishes*
>the welfare - and therefore, coming into existence is not a benefit.


Prediction: The logic will again be ignored or denied, and
dh will continue to exhibit a complete lack of anything even
faintly resembling an ability to think while demanding
examples of what doesn't exist.

(My spellcheck is smarter than dh; it wanted to change "dh"
to "duh".)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #488 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/1/2012 11:59 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:52:06 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 2:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>
>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>
>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>
>> We have shown beyond dispute that one *cannot* benefit simply from
>> coming into existence. It is based on the definition of benefit. A
>> benefit is something that improves the welfare of an experiential
>> entity, but coming into existence does not do that - it *establishes*
>> the welfare - and therefore, coming into existence is not a benefit.

>
> Prediction: The logic will again be ignored or denied, and
> dh will continue to exhibit a complete lack of anything even
> faintly resembling an ability to think while demanding
> examples of what doesn't exist.


****wit - 'dh@' - is worse than merely stupid. He actually *works* at
being stupid.


>
> (My spellcheck is smarter than dh; it wanted to change "dh"
> to "duh".)


Ha ha ha ha ha! Excellent!

  #489 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/1/2012 9:17 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:20:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>
>>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>>
>>>>> You lose.
>>>>
>>>> I win.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>>

>>
>> "benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>> it is meaningless.

>
> So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours,


No one "appears" to benefit from existence, and no one *does* benefit
from it - proved.

  #490 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>
><snip>
>
>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>
>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>You're an idiot.

>
>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.

>
>No examples exist


LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.


  #491 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:31:48 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:17:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:20:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> I win.
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>>>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>>>
>>>
>>>"benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>>>it is meaningless.

>>
>> So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours, and you can't even attempt to
>>explain what you want people to think is preventing you from doing so.

>
>No one "appears" to benefit from existence


You do Goob. What do you want people to pretend is preventing you from
benefitting from yours Goober? We can't pretend that you don't if you can't say
what you want us to think is preventing you, and you can't. Proved, by YOU, Goo.
  #492 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, the convicted felon who has no consideration for
animal welfare, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I win.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>>>>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>>>> it is meaningless.
>>>
>>> So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours

>>
>> No one "appears" to benefit from existence, and no one *does* benefit from it - proved.

>
> You do


No, and no one does.

  #493 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:33:41 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:42:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:31:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:17:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:20:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>>>>>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>>>>>it is meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours, and you can't even attempt to
>>>>explain what you want people to think is preventing you from doing so.
>>>
>>>No one "appears" to benefit from existence

>>
>> You do Goob. What do you want people to pretend is preventing you from
>>benefitting from yours Goober? We can't pretend that you don't if you can't say
>>what you want us to think is preventing you, and you can't. Proved, by YOU, Goo.

>
>No


Yes Goo, you have proved it consistently every time you've been challenged
about it. Try unproving it now Goo. Go:
  #494 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:

>>
>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>You're an idiot.

>>
>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.

>>
>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.


> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.


You really do have a problem with logic and clear thought,
don't you? And also with honesty, considering that you tried
to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
past "No examples exist". So you're not just an idiot,
you're a lying idiot.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #495 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/6/2012 8:47 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:33:41 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:42:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:31:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:17:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:20:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:25:39 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:17:18 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...do you have any clue at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And IronyMeters worldwide explode in flames...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was like an electromagnetic pulse from an H-bomb - just fried all of
>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The concept has no discernible meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You lose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie. You can't even pretend to make an attempt to win, much
>>>>>>> less...LOL...can you actually do it. LOL...hilarious!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "benefitting from your life" has only a *rhetorical* meaning, literally,
>>>>>> it is meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far you STILL appear to benefit from yours,
>>>>
>>>> No one "appears" to benefit from existence, and no one *does* benefit from it - proved.
>>>
>>> You do

>>
>> No, and no one does.

>
> Yes


No. No one "benefits" from existence, and no one appears to benefit
from it. It's impossible - proved.



  #496 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/6/2012 9:13 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>
>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>
>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>
>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar


No, he proved *you* to be a clueless ****wit.

  #497 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova >:

>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>
>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>
>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>
>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.

>
>You really do have a problem with logic and clear thought,
>don't you? And also with honesty, considering that you tried
>to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>past "No examples exist". So you're not just an idiot,
>you're a lying idiot.


No response? No surprise, although I'm sure it's not because
you suddenly developed a brain. Or a conscience.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #498 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:06:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>No response?


Keep trying to find some example(s) of someone explaining what prevents any
and every creature from benefitting from its life. Unless you can do that it
will remain clear that it has not been done and probably never will be.
  #499 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>
>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>
>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>
>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.

>
>You


I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.

>. . .you tried
>to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>past "No examples exist".


LOL!!! You can produce no examples of anyone explaining what prevents
everyone from benefitting from their existence, which is what you're being
challenged to do and failing entirely.
  #500 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/13/2012 1:51 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:06:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> No response?

>
> Keep trying to


You lose. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - proved.



  #501 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>
>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>
>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.


> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life


Nothing needs to "prevent me from benefitting from my life",
since life alone confers no benefit; it's merely a required
precondition to acquiring benefits from events in life. But
since you seem unable to grasp that concept I'm through
trying to educate you.

Go wallow in your continuing ignorance like a pig in a sty.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #502 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:51:33 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:06:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>No response?

>
> Keep trying to find some example(s) of someone explaining what prevents any
>and every creature from benefitting from its life. Unless you can do that it
>will remain clear that it has not been done and probably never will be.


This has been explained multiple times. Nothing is needed
for prevention since life alone confers no benefit. But
you're just too stupid to understand that your assertion is
"not even wrong".
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #503 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:06:03 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:51:33 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:06:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>No response?

>>
>> Keep trying to find some example(s) of someone explaining what prevents any
>>and every creature from benefitting from its life. Unless you can do that it
>>will remain clear that it has not been done and probably never will be.

>
>This has been explained multiple times.


It remains clear that it has not been done and probably never will be.

>Nothing is needed
>for prevention since life alone confers no benefit.


How do you think you'll be able to continue benefitting from anything after
you lose the benefit of life?
  #504 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:03:23 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>
>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>
>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life

>
>Nothing needs to "prevent me from benefitting from my life",


You appear to benefit from it, and can't think of anything that prevents you
from benefitting from it. That should tell you something.

>since life alone confers no benefit; it's merely a required
>precondition to acquiring benefits from events in life.


That's what makes it a benefit. Duh.
  #505 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/13/2012 1:52 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>
>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>
>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>>
>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.

>>
>> You really do have a problem with logic and clear thought,
>> don't you? And also with honesty, considering that you tried
>> to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>> past "No examples exist". So you're not just an idiot,
>> you're a lying idiot.

>
> I was hoping you could


He's right about you, Goo: you're a lying idiot.



  #506 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:50:34 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 11/13/2012 1:52 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>
>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>
>>> You really do have a problem with logic and clear thought,
>>> don't you? And also with honesty, considering that you tried
>>> to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>>> past "No examples exist". So you're not just an idiot,
>>> you're a lying idiot.

>>
>> I was hoping you could

>
>He's right about you, Goo: you're a lying idiot.


I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
Maybe I'll rejoin for his next idiocy; hope springs
eternal....
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #507 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/15/2012 9:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:50:34 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 11/13/2012 1:52 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>
>>>> You really do have a problem with logic and clear thought,
>>>> don't you? And also with honesty, considering that you tried
>>>> to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>>>> past "No examples exist". So you're not just an idiot,
>>>> you're a lying idiot.
>>>
>>> I was hoping you could

>>
>> He's right about you, Goo: you're a lying idiot.

>
> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.


I abandoned the effort to educate him in 1999. Now, I just like to
abuse him for his idiocy.

  #508 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>
>>>>You
>>>
>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.

>>
>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.

>
> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!


Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
it suits you.

>>>>. . .you tried
>>>>to change how my reply would be read by snipping everything
>>>>past "No examples exist".
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You can produce no examples of anyone explaining what prevents
>>>everyone from benefitting from their existence, which is what you're being
>>>challenged to do and failing entirely.

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #509 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>
>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.

>>
>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!

>
>Whatever you say


I'm right about that anyway.
  #510 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/22/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You
>>>>>
>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>> you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>> you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>> That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>
>>>> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>> knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>> out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!

>>
>> Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;

it suits you.
>
> I'm right about that


You're wrong about it, and you know it.

You don't have a case. You never had a case.



  #511 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:


>>>>>...You can't support your own claim.


>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.


>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!


>>Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>it suits you.


> You're right about that anyway.


There; fixed it for you. HAND
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #512 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/23/2012 9:57 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>>>>> ...You can't support your own claim.

>
>>>>> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.

>
>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>> knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>> out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!

>
>>> Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>> it suits you.

>
>> You're right about that anyway.

>
> There; fixed it for you. HAND


Everyone who can read understood it in line with your correction,
anyway. ****wit David Harrison not only wallows in ignorance - he does
so deliberately. ****wit has been wasting the last thirteen and a half
years showing that he has no argument against "veganism", apart from the
fact that it would not allow him to eat meat. That's a valid reason for
him not to like it, but when he attempts to make a more principled
ethical attack against it, he fails utterly.

  #513 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>
>>>Whatever you say

>>
>> I'm right about that anyway.

>
>There


You've had some time now. Do you think you can finally try to explain what
you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?
  #514 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:02:36 -0800, Goo wrote:

>when he attempts to make a more principled
>ethical attack against it, he fails utterly.


Goober I suggest that people give the animals' lives as much or more
consideration than their deaths and you oppose the suggestion ONLY because doing
so works against elimination. YOU have proven that's the only reason Goo by the
fact that in all these years you STILL have not been able to say how you want
people to believe anti-consideration is superior to having consideration other
than the fact that anti-consideration favors elimination and ONLY elimination.
So to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination your
anti-consideration is very much INFERIOR to having consideration, and between
all of you misnomer huggers you can't even attempt to pretend that it's not.
  #515 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:02:36 -0800, Prof. Geo. Plimpton, Goo ****wit Harrison's better in *every* way, wrote:
>
>> Everyone who can read understood it in line with your correction, anyway.
>> ****wit David Harrison not only wallows in ignorance - he does so deliberately.
>> ****wit has been wasting the last thirteen and a half years showing that he has
>> no argument against "veganism", apart from the fact that it would not allow him
>> to eat meat. That's a valid reason for him not to like it, but when he attempts
>> to make a more principled ethical attack against it, he fails utterly.

>
> I suggest that people give the animals' lives as much or more
> consideration than


No, ****wit, because *YOU* give their lives no consideration at all.
That's all fake bullshit. *ALL* you consider is the products - proved
beyond dispute.



  #516 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!


>>>>Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>it suits you.


>>> You're right about that anyway.


There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.

> You've had some time now.


Yep, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #517 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>
>>>>>Whatever you say
>>>>
>>>> I'm right about that anyway.
>>>
>>>There

>>
>> You've had some time now. Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?

>
>Yep


I knew that before I made the challenge, but thanks for confirming.

>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance.


It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim. I can't
read your mind and find out what you want people to think is preventing you....
  #518 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>>>it suits you.


>>>>> You're right about that anyway.


>>There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.


>>> You've had some time now.


>>Yep


>>>Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>>you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>>still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?


>>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.


> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim


I'm not making a claim; you are. You claim that "life is a
benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
claim, and it's up to you, not me, to support it.

As I said before, I've seen, and you've provided, exactly NO
examples of "benefitting solely from life". Existence
provides the framework in which benefit can exist, but it
confers no benefit in itself. If you disagree it's up to you
to provide evidence of some specific benefit conferred
solely by existence.

>. I can't
>read your mind


You can't even read what's written, so that's no surprise.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #519 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 11/30/2012 9:18 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>>> you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>>> you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>>> That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>>> knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>>> out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>>>> it suits you.

>
>>>>>> You're right about that anyway.

>
>>> There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.

>
>>>> You've had some time now.

>
>>> Yep

>
>>>> Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>>> you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>>> still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?

>
>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.

>
>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim

>
> I'm not making a claim; you are. You claim that "life is a
> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
> claim, and it's up to you, not me, to support it.


Meanwhile, I have shown that life - existence - *cannot* be a benefit.
A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. The
entity, and thus the entity's welfare, must *already* exist in order to
be capable of improvement. Therefore, existence cannot be a benefit.


> As I said before, I've seen, and you've provided, exactly NO
> examples of "benefitting solely from life".


Of course not. There can't be any - by definition.


> Existence
> provides the framework in which benefit can exist, but it
> confers no benefit in itself.


I'd phrase it a bit differently, but it's not a big material difference.
I would say that existence *is* the framework, or the necessary
condition, in which benefit can occur.


> If you disagree it's up to you
> to provide evidence of some specific benefit conferred
> solely by existence.


He can't - he won't even attempt it. ****wit - that's legally his name
- starts with ridiculous and false premises, mixes them up with his own
special cracker blend of illogic, and then "argues" by mere assertion
and repetition.


>> . I can't
>> read your mind

>
> You can't even read what's written, so that's no surprise.


It's not so much that he can't, although his reading comprehension
ability is severely defective. It's more that he refuses to try.

  #520 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:49:42 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 11/30/2012 9:18 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>>>> you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>>>> you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>>>> knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>>>> out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>>>>> it suits you.

>>
>>>>>>> You're right about that anyway.

>>
>>>> There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.

>>
>>>>> You've had some time now.

>>
>>>> Yep

>>
>>>>> Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>>>> you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>>>> still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?

>>
>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.

>>
>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim

>>
>> I'm not making a claim; you are. You claim that "life is a
>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>> claim, and it's up to you, not me, to support it.

>
>Meanwhile, I have shown that life - existence - *cannot* be a benefit.
>A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. The
>entity, and thus the entity's welfare, must *already* exist in order to
>be capable of improvement. Therefore, existence cannot be a benefit.


Yep, I saw it. And the moron has continually ignored it.

>> As I said before, I've seen, and you've provided, exactly NO
>> examples of "benefitting solely from life".

>
>Of course not. There can't be any - by definition.


I'm just curious to see if he even acknowledges my comment,
and if he posts *something* in reply. But I suspect he'll
ignore it and repost his usual "Nyah, nyah; you can't show
why existence isn't a benefit!" idiocy.

>> Existence
>> provides the framework in which benefit can exist, but it
>> confers no benefit in itself.

>
>I'd phrase it a bit differently, but it's not a big material difference.
> I would say that existence *is* the framework, or the necessary
>condition, in which benefit can occur.


A subtle difference, and I think either phrasing gets the
point across. Ummm... not to him, of course, but to anyone
with even a hint of cognitive ability.

>> If you disagree it's up to you
>> to provide evidence of some specific benefit conferred
>> solely by existence.

>
>He can't - he won't even attempt it. ****wit - that's legally his name
>- starts with ridiculous and false premises, mixes them up with his own
>special cracker blend of illogic, and then "argues" by mere assertion
>and repetition.
>
>
>>> . I can't
>>> read your mind

>>
>> You can't even read what's written, so that's no surprise.

>
>It's not so much that he can't, although his reading comprehension
>ability is severely defective. It's more that he refuses to try.


Seems so...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dietary ethics dh@. Vegan 0 03-07-2012 05:42 PM
Dietary Question Virginia Tadrzynski[_2_] General Cooking 33 02-03-2010 05:16 AM
Attitudes toward dietary adversity Christine Dabney General Cooking 143 18-01-2008 01:27 AM
Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection bobbie sellers Chocolate 0 04-08-2006 06:18 PM
Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics medianext05 Diabetic 1 10-07-2006 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"