On 1/9/2013 12:06 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant
pig-****ing cracker and *convicted felon* - lied:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker and *convicted felon* - lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>> was bullshit.
>
> He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

On 1/9/2013 12:06 PM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:52 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware I didn't list all of
>>>>
>>>> Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*
>>>
>>> You're letting me know that
>>
>> ...that you're a ****witted cracker liar. Yes.
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - proved.
>
> Who else

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

dh@. wrote:
> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

That's meaningless drivel.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 1/9/2013 9:10 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:45 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>
>>> On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from
>>>>>> life?
>>>>>
>>>>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>>>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>>>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>>>>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>>>>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>>>>> available on request):
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>>>>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>>>>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>>>>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>>>>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>>>>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>>>>> isn't a "benefit".
>>>>>
>>>>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>>>>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>>>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
>>>> means the very process of living,
>>>
>>> He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.
>>
>> That's exactly what he claimed. Until now, that is. Now it
>> seems he may have caught on to the idiocy of that position.
>
>He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on
>this issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he
>began his clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all
>the way back to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to
>experience life" as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker
>terminology, is a benefit. He waffles back and forth now.
>
>
>> He should have, as it's been explained enough times with
>> enough examples that even he should finally "get it", and
>> he's trying to weasel-word around his idiocy in hopes no one
>> will notice. Unfortunately for him he's too stupid to do so
>> with even minimal competence, and too arrogant and dishonest
>> to admit his errors.
>
>You seem much more reluctant - quite possibly you refuse - to believe in
>any explanatory power of the sort of regional and class stereotypes I
>have used to describe ****wit, but I think there is some explanatory
>power in them. He really is a poorly educated and backward cracker.
>Although he claims to have been born elsewhere, he spent most of his
>youth in benighted territory in the far outskirts of Atlanta, Georgia.
>He exemplifies southern anti-intellectual know-nothingism. If you've
>ever read or had any exposure to Richard Hofstadter's
>"Anti-Intellectualism In American Life", you know that he was writing
>about the ****wits of America.

You could have a point, but I prefer to treat others on
their individual merits; granted that dh apparently has
none. I've known many people from the rural South who were
intelligent and knowledgeable, and many from the urban North
who were the diametric opposite. Prejudice (in the general
meaning of prejudgment, rather that the popular one of
"racism") doesn't contribute to accurate evaluation of
individuals.

>>>> and that can't benefit you, because it
>>>> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
>>>> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
>>>> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
>>>> he thinks they make sense.
>>>
>>> He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
>>> to manipulate it.
>>
>> Seems so...
>
>It is so. There is no way ****wit thought this up by himself. He
>hasn't had an original thought in his life. In all seriousness, he
>really hasn't.

*That* I can accept, but I base it on his posts, not his
antecedents and location.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On 1/10/2013 8:54 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 1/9/2013 9:10 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:45 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>>
>>>> On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from
>>>>>>> life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>>>>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>>>>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>>>>>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>>>>>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>>>>>> available on request):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>>>>>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>>>>>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>>>>>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>>>>>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>>>>>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>>>>>> isn't a "benefit".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>>>>>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>>>>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
>>>>> means the very process of living,
>>>>
>>>> He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what he claimed. Until now, that is. Now it
>>> seems he may have caught on to the idiocy of that position.
>>
>> He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on
>> this issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he
>> began his clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all
>> the way back to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to
>> experience life" as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker
>> terminology, is a benefit. He waffles back and forth now.
>>
>>
>>> He should have, as it's been explained enough times with
>>> enough examples that even he should finally "get it", and
>>> he's trying to weasel-word around his idiocy in hopes no one
>>> will notice. Unfortunately for him he's too stupid to do so
>>> with even minimal competence, and too arrogant and dishonest
>>> to admit his errors.
>>
>> You seem much more reluctant - quite possibly you refuse - to believe in
>> any explanatory power of the sort of regional and class stereotypes I
>> have used to describe ****wit, but I think there is some explanatory
>> power in them. He really is a poorly educated and backward cracker.
>> Although he claims to have been born elsewhere, he spent most of his
>> youth in benighted territory in the far outskirts of Atlanta, Georgia.
>> He exemplifies southern anti-intellectual know-nothingism. If you've
>> ever read or had any exposure to Richard Hofstadter's
>> "Anti-Intellectualism In American Life", you know that he was writing
>> about the ****wits of America.
>
> You could have a point, but I prefer to treat others on
> their individual merits; granted that dh apparently has
> none. I've known many people from the rural South who were
> intelligent and knowledgeable, and many from the urban North
> who were the diametric opposite. Prejudice (in the general
> meaning of prejudgment, rather that the popular one of
> "racism") doesn't contribute to accurate evaluation of
> individuals.

While there definitely are people who are outliers and unconventional
thinkers, I believe there are probably more who consciously want to
conform to the social and (huh) intellectual norms of their communities.
****wit David Harrison is one of those. I think American national
culture generally has a hostility to intellectual endeavor, but that
unhelpful tradition is certainly strongest in the south. It's not at
all remarkable that a Republican candidate in Georgia for the House of
Representatives, Paul Broun - a medical doctor, no less - said, "I've
come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and
embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit
of hell." Now, I'm sure that sentiment is shared by some people all
over the US, but we would expect to hear of someone in Georgia saying it.

****wit is exactly like that, except that he tries to put a shabby
veneer over it. ****wit can cite chapter and verse from the bible,
quite extensively, and what he cites is exactly what you would expect
from a credulous Southern Baptist true believer, but he tries to put
some kind of "agnostic" gloss on it.




>>>>> and that can't benefit you, because it
>>>>> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
>>>>> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
>>>>> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
>>>>> he thinks they make sense.
>>>>
>>>> He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
>>>> to manipulate it.
>>>
>>> Seems so...
>>
>> It is so. There is no way ****wit thought this up by himself. He
>> hasn't had an original thought in his life. In all seriousness, he
>> really hasn't.
>
> *That* I can accept, but I base it on his posts, not his
> antecedents and location.
>

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:

>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>
>>>>"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>>>while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>>>not all equal?" - James Hepler
>>>
>>>James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>was bullshit.
>>
>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>
>James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>
>That's meaningless drivel.

We've seen that it's the truth. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
it, while no other group of people does.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:28 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:12 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, Goo ineptly puled:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've got on
>>>>>>>>the list, or the probably 4+ times MORE he has also dishonestly pretended to be
>>>>>>>>that I'm not aware of and don't have on the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>not all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm aware I didn't list all of them Goob. Do you think I've got ten percent
>>>>>>on the list, or less than that, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*
>>>>
>>>> You're letting me know that even though I've got three dozen examples of
>>>>"different people" you've dishonestly pretended to be Goober, it's less than ten
>>>>percent of the total. That means you have dishonestly pretended to be hundreds
>>>>of "different" people Goo.
>>>
>>>...that you're
>>
>> Who else Goob? Who else have you dishonestly pretended to be that I don't
>>have on the list? Why are you ashamed to say, Goo?
>
>"Ge

Why are you so very ashamed to say, Goo?

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, probably Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>>>>>yours you know it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>>>>>
>>>>>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo.
>>>
>>>It wasn't a compliment or
>>
>> LOL!!! YOU being honest about something seems like a compliment to the other
>>person from your pov. LOL...HILARIOUS. That almost convinces me you ARE Goo.
>>From here on unless something significant indicates you might not be, I'll take
>>it for granted you're Goo. Who else would be dishonest and stupid enough "think"
>>the way you do?
>>
>>>anything similar, it was a note
>>>regarding your many-times-demonstrated inabilities to
>>>comprehend damn near anything.
>>>
>>>> Still you can't say what
>>>>you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you
>>>
>>>Already done so.
>>
>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
>>life? Why can't you say? Why is all you can do lie that you've already told us,
>>when if you had tried I'd probably be laughing at that rather than constantly
>>challenging you to try explaining what you want people to think it is?
>>
>>>The fact that you think there's some
>>>nebulous "benefit" in being born with a painful . . . A short life of nothing but pain
>>>isn't a "benefit".
>>
>> This is yet more evidence that you ARE Goo. I know from previous experience
>>that Goo can't acknowledge and probably can't even appreciate the distinction
>>between these two definitions of the word:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>distinctive quality of animate beings
>>
>>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>up the existence of an individual
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>argument with the latter.

LOL!!!! Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
is not a benefit. Go:

>>LOL...and if you can't then again you are uniquely stupid in a way that so far
>>has been resticted only to Goo and maybe his boy "Dutch". In case you are that
>>stupid, the life I point out is a benefit is the first definition, while the
>>second is not always a benefit of course. But if you can't appreciate the
>>distinction between the meanings, you also can't appreciate the distinction
>>between one being a benefit always and the other not always.
.. . .
>> Try to explain what you want people to think prevents life from being a
>>benefit from you. If you can't explain why you want us to think life in general
>>is not, then try explaining how you want us to think your life in particular is
>>not. Go:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.

In contrast to your blatant lie I not only acknowledge the distinction but
have pointed it out in the past to you goos as well as to your new brother,
unless of course it's Goo himself AGAIN dishonestly pretending to be a different
person. Here's the distinction between different meanings for the word that I
usually provide you with:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and point out that 1 b is itself a necessary benefit in order to benefit from
anything else, and also that when you lose the benefit of life you can no longer
benefit from anything afawk.
I also point out that 2 a is not always a benefit and that the value of it
can change from positive to negative and do so multiple times for an individual.
You're too stupid to comprehend it seems, or you wouldn't be acting like you're
too stupid to comprehend like you are, but that's how it is and has been since
long before humans started raising animals.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, Goo wrote:

>on occasion, he falls all
>the way back to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to
>experience life" as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker
>terminology, is a benefit. He waffles back and forth now.

LOL!!! Goober I ALWAYS point out that life itself is a benefit, even when
the individual life experience of an individual being is not. I recognise,
acknowledge and refer to the distinction between the two different meanings for
the word Goo, while you and your boys can not. Now probably Goo is showing that
he can't appreciate the distinction either, which is more evidence that probably
Goo is really you AGAIN pretending to be a different person as you've done
hundreds of times in the past, Goo.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:12:28 -0800, Goo wrote:

>if we make the assumption
>that the good in your life outweighs the bad, then we might say that
>*your* life - your set of experiences - is a benefit to *you*.

Why can't you appreciate any distinction between lives of positive and
negative value Goob? In fact if you think you understand that much of it why can
you not only not appreciate such a distinction, but why can't you explain it to
your brother Dr. Rupert who claims to be so stupid he doesn't think that
distinction "means anything"?

>But that does not allow us to say that coming into existence, or
>"getting to experience life", is a benefit in any way.

Unless you finally figure out a way of pretending you can benefit after you
lose your life Goob, it will remain clear that life is one of the benefits that
makes all others possible.
.. . .
>****wit does say that "vegans" are doing
>something harmful to those non-existent, merely potential animals.

That's a blatant lie Goo and in fact I say I believe they're not and don't
even know what particular "non-existent, merely potential animals" your stupid
little mind is imagining I have any thoughts about. You're not only lying
blatantly, but outstupiding yourself again every time you tell that lie Goober,
even if you're ever able to find someone who's stupid enough ...LOL... to be
fooled into believing it. Keep trying though Goo, because if you do find someone
that stupid maybe they can help you try to figure out which particular
"non-existent, merely potential animals" you want people to think you think
you're trying to talk about.

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.
>
> In contrast to your blatant lie


Of course you would deny it, you don't know you're doing it, it's
unconscious.

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.
>
> In contrast to your blatant lie


Of course you would deny it, you don't know you're doing it, it's
unconscious.

On 1/10/2013 12:18 PM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on this
>> issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he began his
>> clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all the way back
>> to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to experience life" as he
>> puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker terminology, is a benefit. He waffles
>> back and forth now.
>
> I ALWAYS point out that life itself is a benefit, even when
> the individual life experience of an individual being is not.

LOL!!! Three goofball cracker lies in one sentence! LOL!!!!!!

First of all, ****wit - *Goo* - you never "point out" anything. You
have never "pointed out" anything. Second, "life itself", by which you
plainly mean existence, *cannot* be a benefit, by definition, because it
doesn't improve the welfare of the entity that exists. And third,
****wit - *Goo* - you do indeed equivocate between "life itself", or the
vessel, and the *contents* of the vessel.

LOL!!! You stupid ****ing cracker.

On 1/10/2013 12:18 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>


>> Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>> argument with the latter.
>
> Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
> is not a benefit.

He never said or implied that, *Goo*.

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. A
benefit is something that improves an entity's welfare. Existence
doesn't do that.

On 1/10/2013 12:18 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.
>
> In contrast to your blatant lie

No lie.

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

On 1/10/2013 12:18 PM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:28 -0800, George A Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:12 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:26 -0800, George B Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:52 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George C Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:08:23 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:14 -0800, George D Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied and did not 'point out' anything:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't make Goo pretend to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority
>>>>>>>> of them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery
>>>>>>>> has led you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm aware I didn't list all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led you to **** up *again*, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're letting me know that
>>>>
>>>> ...that you're a ****witted cracker liar. Yes.
>>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - proved.
>>>
>>> Who else
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - proved.
>
> Why are

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

On 1/10/2013 12:17 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>
>> That's meaningless drivel.
>
> We've seen that it's


Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.

On 1/10/2013 12:16 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant
pig-****ing cracker and *convicted felon* - lied:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker and *convicted felon* - lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker and *convicted felon* - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>> was bullshit.
>>>
>>> He asked if the
>>
>> James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>> bullshit was pure bullshit.
>
> LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>..Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>is not a benefit.

No need; anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.

And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
trying to educate you.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> ..Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>> is not a benefit.
>
> No need; anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
> for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
> Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
> benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
> equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
> even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.
>
> And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
> explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
> since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
> trying to educate you.

Good effort. He is uneducable, by his own admission. The only thing
left to do is abuse him. I'll carry on.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> ..Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>>> is not a benefit.
>>
>> No need; anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
>> for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
>> Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
>> benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
>> equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
>> even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.
>>
>> And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
>> explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
>> since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
>> trying to educate you.
>
>Good effort. He is uneducable, by his own admission. The only thing
>left to do is abuse him. I'll carry on.

Your choice; good luck. I have a wide tolerance for idiots,
but eventually I reach my limit, at least for a while.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>>>>>while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>>>>>not all equal?" - James Hepler
>>>>>
>>>>>James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>>>was bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>
>>>James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>>>bullshit was pure bullshit.
>>
>> LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
>>taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.
>
>LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:32 -0800, Goo maundered:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:17:44 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>
>>>That's meaningless drivel.
>>
>> We've seen that it's the truth. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
>>it, while no other group of people does.
>
>Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.

What group of people other than eliminationists do you want us to think have
reason to oppose taking the animals' lives into consideration, Goo?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:57 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>on occasion, he falls all
>>>the way back to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to
>>>experience life" as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker
>>>terminology, is a benefit. He waffles back and forth now.
>>
>> LOL!!! Goober I ALWAYS point out that life itself is a benefit, even when
>>the individual life experience of an individual being is not. I recognise,
>>acknowledge and refer to the distinction between the two different meanings for
>>the word Goo, while you and your boys can not.
>
>you do indeed equivocate between "life itself", or the
>vessel, and the *contents* of the vessel.

Life itself is a benefit even when the individual life experience of an
individual being is not, Goo.

>>Now probably Goo is showing that
>>he can't appreciate the distinction either, which is more evidence that probably
>>Goo is really you AGAIN pretending to be a different person as you've done
>>hundreds of times in the past, Goo.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>>>benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.
>>
>> In contrast to your blatant lie I not only acknowledge the distinction but
>>have pointed it out in the past to you goos as well as to your new brother,
>>unless of course it's Goo himself AGAIN dishonestly pretending to be a different
>>person. Here's the distinction between different meanings for the word that I
>>usually provide you with:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>distinctive quality of animate beings
>>
>>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>up the existence of an individual
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>and point out that 1 b is itself a necessary benefit in order to benefit from
>>anything else, and also that when you lose the benefit of life you can no longer
>>benefit from anything afawk.
>> I also point out that 2 a is not always a benefit and that the value of it
>>can change from positive to negative and do so multiple times for an individual.
>>You're too stupid to comprehend it seems, or you wouldn't be acting like you're
>>too stupid to comprehend like you are, but that's how it is and has been since
>>long before humans started raising animals.
>
>Of course you would deny it, you don't know you're doing it, it's
>unconscious.

I point out a distinction that you can't acknowledge, can't appreciate, and
quite possibly can't even comprehend.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, probably Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>>>>>>>yours you know it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>>>reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't a compliment or
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! YOU being honest about something seems like a compliment to the other
>>>>person from your pov. LOL...HILARIOUS. That almost convinces me you ARE Goo.
>>>>From here on unless something significant indicates you might not be, I'll take
>>>>it for granted you're Goo. Who else would be dishonest and stupid enough "think"
>>>>the way you do?
>>>>
>>>>>anything similar, it was a note
>>>>>regarding your many-times-demonstrated inabilities to
>>>>>comprehend damn near anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Still you can't say what
>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you
>>>>>
>>>>>Already done so.
>>>>
>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from
>>>>life? Why can't you say? Why is all you can do lie that you've already told us,
>>>>when if you had tried I'd probably be laughing at that rather than constantly
>>>>challenging you to try explaining what you want people to think it is?
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that you think there's some
>>>>>nebulous "benefit" in being born with a painful . . . A short life of nothing but pain
>>>>>isn't a "benefit".
>>>>
>>>> This is yet more evidence that you ARE Goo. I know from previous experience
>>>>that Goo can't acknowledge and probably can't even appreciate the distinction
>>>>between these two definitions of the word:
>>>>______________________________________________ ___________
>>>>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>>>distinctive quality of animate beings
>>>>
>>>>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>>>up the existence of an individual
>>>>
>>>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>>not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>>argument with the latter.
>>
>> LOL!!!! Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>>is not a benefit. Go:
>
>No need;

The need exists, but you don't have the ability. You amusingly have no idea
what you want people to think or you'd have said what it is instead of wussing
horribly as you did instead.

>anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
>for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
>Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
>benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
>equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
>even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.
>
>And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
>explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
>since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
>trying to educate you.

You have nothing to teach. You can't even pretend you do. You've proven that
without question. The only thing still in question is:

What the hell do you think you could possibly gain if you could persuade people
to think life is not a benefit? What do you think is in it for you, or for
anything???

>>>>LOL...and if you can't then again you are uniquely stupid in a way that so far
>>>>has been resticted only to Goo and maybe his boy "Dutch". In case you are that
>>>>stupid, the life I point out is a benefit is the first definition, while the
>>>>second is not always a benefit of course. But if you can't appreciate the
>>>>distinction between the meanings, you also can't appreciate the distinction
>>>>between one being a benefit always and the other not always.
>>. . .
>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think prevents life from being a
>>>>benefit from you. If you can't explain why you want us to think life in general
>>>>is not, then try explaining how you want us to think your life in particular is
>>>>not. Go:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, Goo wrote:

>a Republican candidate in Georgia for the House of
>Representatives, Paul Broun - a medical doctor, no less - said, "I've
>come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and
>embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit
>of hell." Now, I'm sure that sentiment is shared by some people all
>over the US, but we would expect to hear of someone in Georgia saying it.
>
>****wit is exactly like that. . . but he tries to put
>some kind of "agnostic" gloss on it.

I'm a weak agnostic Goober meaning I believe God may or may not exist, but
that if he does exist some people could be aware of the fact. A strong agnostic
believes no one can know if he does or if he does not Goob, even if he does. In
contrast to what Broun believes what I believe about evolution is number 16 on
my list, Goo:

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:57:56 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>>>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating.
>>>
>>> In contrast to your blatant lie I not only acknowledge the distinction but
>>> have pointed it out in the past to you goos as well as to your new brother,
>>> unless of course it's Goo himself AGAIN dishonestly pretending to be a different
>>> person. Here's the distinction between different meanings for the word that I
>>> usually provide you with:
>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>> 1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>> distinctive quality of animate beings
>>>
>>> 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>> up the existence of an individual
>>>
>>> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> and point out that 1 b is itself a necessary benefit in order to benefit from
>>> anything else, and also that when you lose the benefit of life you can no longer
>>> benefit from anything afawk.
>>> I also point out that 2 a is not always a benefit and that the value of it
>>> can change from positive to negative and do so multiple times for an individual.
>>> You're too stupid to comprehend it seems, or you wouldn't be acting like you're
>>> too stupid to comprehend like you are, but that's how it is and has been since
>>> long before humans started raising animals.
>>
>> Of course you would deny it, you don't know you're doing it, it's
>> unconscious.
>
> I point out a distinction that you can't acknowledge, can't appreciate, and
> quite possibly can't even comprehend.
>

You make up drivel and expel it like vomit. You are aggressively ignorant.

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, a stupid inbred
cracker - lied:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova:
>

>>> LOL!!!! Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>>> is not a benefit. Go:
>>
>> No need;
>
> The need exists,

No, there's no need. It has been proved beyond rational dispute that
existence - "getting to experience life [itself]" - is not and *cannot
be* a benefit.


>
>> anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
>> for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
>> Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
>> benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
>> equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
>> even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.
>>
>> And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
>> explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
>> since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
>> trying to educate you.
>
> You have nothing to teach.

He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you
deliberately blind yourself.

On 1/12/2013 10:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a lying
convicted felon, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, George Plimpton dumped shit on ****wit's head:
>
>> While there definitely are people who are outliers and unconventional thinkers,
>> I believe there are probably more who consciously want to conform to the social
>> and (huh) intellectual norms of their communities. ****wit David Harrison is
>> one of those. I think American national culture generally has a hostility to
>> intellectual endeavor, but that unhelpful tradition is certainly strongest in
>> the south. It's not at all remarkable that a Republican candidate in Georgia
>> for the House of Representatives, Paul Broun - a medical doctor, no less - said,
>> "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and
>> embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
>> Now, I'm sure that sentiment is shared by some people all over the US, but we
>> would expect to hear of someone in Georgia saying it.
>>
>> ****wit is exactly like that. . . but he tries to put
>> some kind of "agnostic" gloss on it.
>
> I'm a weak agnostic

No, you are not. You are an ardent true-believing stupid
knuckle-dragging Southern Baptist. You absolutely believe in the
Southern Baptist - that is, stupid and illiterate - conception of "god".

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:25 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:57 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>
>>>> He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on this
>>>> issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he began his
>>>> clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all the way back
>>>> to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to experience life" as he
>>>> puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker terminology, is a benefit. He waffles
>>>> back and forth now.
>>>
>>> I ALWAYS point out that life itself is a benefit, even when
>>> the individual life experience of an individual being is not.
>>
>> LOL!!! Three goofball cracker lies in one sentence! LOL!!!!!!
>>
>> First of all, ****wit - *Goo* - you never "point out" anything. You have never
>> "pointed out" anything. Second, "life itself", by which you plainly mean
>> existence, *cannot* be a benefit, by definition, because it doesn't improve the
>> welfare of the entity that exists. And third, ****wit - *Goo* - you do indeed
>> equivocate between "life itself", or the vessel, and the *contents* of the vessel.
>>
>> LOL!!! You stupid ****ing cracker.

>
> Life itself is a benefit


Life itself is not a benefit. It cannot be: it doesn't improve the
welfare of the living entity.

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
fighting dog breeder, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:32 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:17:44 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon fighting dog breeder, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon fighting dog breeder, lied:
>>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> That's meaningless drivel.
>>>
>>> We've seen that it's
>>
>> Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.
>
> What group of people other than

Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
meaningless drivel. Everyone.

On 1/12/2013 10:29 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>>>>>> while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>>>>>> not all equal?" - James Hepler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>>>> was bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>>>> bullshit was pure bullshit.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
>>> taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!
>
> [concession of defeat]

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live, the people do. It's how
THEY squash any guilt they might feel at slaughter time.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....b3bd2e393b89b2

It doesn't get any clearer than that, ****wit - *Goo*: James Hepler
said point blank that your goofy cracker "animals getting to experience
life" crapola is pure bullshit.

How about this, *Goo*?

George Plimpton (after James announced his return to the groups):
You'll no doubt be pleased (?) to know that David Harrison is
still trying to coax a few more furlongs out of his "animals'
getting to experience life" argument.

James Hepler:
You know, sad as it may sound, even after I left I still heard
that argument on other forums, about other subjects. Things
like, "at least slaves got to live, as well as room and board".
SO many good arguments out there, I can't figure out why some
people have to cling to lousy ones.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....546dd2a6069f54

He said that your "animals getting to experience life" bullshit is
lousy, ****wit. He's right, of course.

Or how about this one, *Goo*, in the same thread:

****wit David Harrison - *Goo*:
Welcome back to the same 'ol same 'ol... Nothing has
changed a whole lot--billions of animals are still experiencing
life only because humans raise them, and a few AE¹As are still
trying to convince people that the fact is insignificant.

James Hepler:
My post was not intended to serve as a segue for your crusade.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....c1386e6c3d1597


"getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit - *Goo* - and
every significant anti-"ar" poster in the *ENTIRE* time you've spent
****ing away thousands of hours here has told you that: James Hepler,
Martin Martins, Rick Etter, Ward Clark, diderot, John Mercer, Felix,
George Boggs - *EVERYONE*, ****wit.

On 1/12/2013 10:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - a lying
convicted felon, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, George Plimpton dumped shit on ****wit's head:
>
>> While there definitely are people who are outliers and unconventional thinkers,
>> I believe there are probably more who consciously want to conform to the social
>> and (huh) intellectual norms of their communities. ****wit David Harrison is
>> one of those. I think American national culture generally has a hostility to
>> intellectual endeavor, but that unhelpful tradition is certainly strongest in
>> the south. It's not at all remarkable that a Republican candidate in Georgia
>> for the House of Representatives, Paul Broun - a medical doctor, no less - said,
>> "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and
>> embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
>> Now, I'm sure that sentiment is shared by some people all over the US, but we
>> would expect to hear of someone in Georgia saying it.
>>
>> ****wit is exactly like that. . . but he tries to put
>> some kind of "agnostic" gloss on it.
>
> I'm a weak agnostic

No, you are not. You are an ardent true-believing stupid
knuckle-dragging Southern Baptist. You absolutely believe in the
Southern Baptist - that is, stupid and illiterate - conception of "god".

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, a stupid inbred
cracker - lied:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova:
>

>>> LOL!!!! Explain how you want people to think you benefit from something that
>>> is not a benefit. Go:
>>
>> No need;
>
> The need exists,

No, there's no need. It has been proved beyond rational dispute that
existence - "getting to experience life [itself]" - is not and *cannot
be* a benefit.


>
>> anyone with two neurons knows that prerequisites
>> for benefits are not in themselves automatically benefits.
>> Like "experiencing life", they may be neutral, with the
>> benefit only realized in the content. Your contention is
>> equivalent to claiming that receiving mail is a benefit,
>> even if the mail is a bomb or an envelope of anthrax.
>>
>> And since you refuse to address the previous examples I gave
>> explaining exactly the answer you're *again* asking for, and
>> since I'm sure you'll do the same with this one, I'm through
>> trying to educate you.
>
> You have nothing to teach.

He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you
deliberately blind yourself.

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:25 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:57 -0500, *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:43:38 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>>>
>>>> He sort of vacillates back and forth. I beat the stuffing out of him on this
>>>> issue a few years ago, actually (so did Dutch), and that's when he began his
>>>> clumsy attempts at equivocation, but on occasion, he falls all the way back
>>>> to claiming that coming into existence, or "getting to experience life" as he
>>>> puts it in his wretchedly shitty cracker terminology, is a benefit. He waffles
>>>> back and forth now.
>>>
>>> I ALWAYS point out that life itself is a benefit, even when
>>> the individual life experience of an individual being is not.
>>
>> LOL!!! Three goofball cracker lies in one sentence! LOL!!!!!!
>>
>> First of all, ****wit - *Goo* - you never "point out" anything. You have never
>> "pointed out" anything. Second, "life itself", by which you plainly mean
>> existence, *cannot* be a benefit, by definition, because it doesn't improve the
>> welfare of the entity that exists. And third, ****wit - *Goo* - you do indeed
>> equivocate between "life itself", or the vessel, and the *contents* of the vessel.
>>
>> LOL!!! You stupid ****ing cracker.

>
> Life itself is a benefit


Life itself is not a benefit. It cannot be: it doesn't improve the
welfare of the living entity.

On 1/12/2013 10:30 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
fighting dog breeder, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:32 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:17:44 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon fighting dog breeder, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon fighting dog breeder, lied:
>>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> That's meaningless drivel.
>>>
>>> We've seen that it's
>>
>> Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.
>
> What group of people other than

Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
meaningless drivel. Everyone.

On 1/12/2013 10:29 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
breeder of fighting dogs, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton bashed *Goo* again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>>>>>> while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>>>>>> not all equal?" - James Hepler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>>>> was bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>> considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>>>> bullshit was pure bullshit.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
>>> taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!
>
> [concession of defeat]

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live, the people do. It's how
THEY squash any guilt they might feel at slaughter time.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....b3bd2e393b89b2

It doesn't get any clearer than that, ****wit - *Goo*: James Hepler
said point blank that your goofy cracker "animals getting to experience
life" crapola is pure bullshit.

How about this, *Goo*?

George Plimpton (after James announced his return to the groups):
You'll no doubt be pleased (?) to know that David Harrison is
still trying to coax a few more furlongs out of his "animals'
getting to experience life" argument.

James Hepler:
You know, sad as it may sound, even after I left I still heard
that argument on other forums, about other subjects. Things
like, "at least slaves got to live, as well as room and board".
SO many good arguments out there, I can't figure out why some
people have to cling to lousy ones.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....546dd2a6069f54

He said that your "animals getting to experience life" bullshit is
lousy, ****wit. He's right, of course.

Or how about this one, *Goo*, in the same thread:

****wit David Harrison - *Goo*:
Welcome back to the same 'ol same 'ol... Nothing has
changed a whole lot--billions of animals are still experiencing
life only because humans raise them, and a few AE¹As are still
trying to convince people that the fact is insignificant.

James Hepler:
My post was not intended to serve as a segue for your crusade.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk....c1386e6c3d1597


"getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit - *Goo* - and
every significant anti-"ar" poster in the *ENTIRE* time you've spent
****ing away thousands of hours here has told you that: James Hepler,
Martin Martins, Rick Etter, Ward Clark, diderot, John Mercer, Felix,
George Boggs - *EVERYONE*, ****wit.