On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:

>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

LOL!!! You just confirmed that you can't comprehend the distinction between
these two different meanings for the word "life". Well, that does explain why
you couldn't acknowledge or appreciate it either. Strange though that in the
past you tried to act like you could appreciate it, but maybe you were just
parroting something you found somewhere else. Or...maybe you unlearned again...
Does trying to think about the different meanings make you feel "dirty"? Now
that we mention it it's odd that blatantly lying doesn't seem to make you feel
dirty at all, but considering the animals you contribute to the lives and deaths
of does.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, probably Goo wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic:
>
>>On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, probably Goo 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.

So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life
from being a benefit, or why you want people to think it's not? Of course the
only reason I'm aware of that anyone would want to promote the idea is in an
effort to encourage acceptance of the elimination objective, and from my pov Goo
clearly appears to be an eliminationist. If you're Goo then of course you would
be too, and if you're not unless you're still an eliminationist there's no good
reason for you to insist what you do, afawk.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>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

How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?

Prediction: Goo can't answer any of the questions.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>meaningless drivel. Everyone.

ONLY eliminationists have reason to feel that way Goob, and NO ONE else.
That's why you can't even pretend that anyone else does, Goo.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:31:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>N

You're a strong atheist Goober who believes God does not exist and you have
faith that that's the correct possibility, but you're also ashamed of your faith
as well.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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???
>
>He has attempted

How do you want us to think that persuading people to believe life is not a
benefit could help promote decent AW over elimination, Goo? Your dishonest
seeming claim certainly favors elimination over AW Goober, that much is very
obvious, but how do you want people to think your claim secretly helps favor AW?

Prediction: Goo can't even make an attempt to pretend that it does, revealing
himself once again.

On 1/14/2013 11:35 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> LOL!!! You just confirmed that

That you make up bullshit - that's what he confirmed.

It's bullshit that every serious anti-"ar" poster has called bullshit.

On 1/14/2013 11:37 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life

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

On 1/14/2013 11:35 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
> LOL!!! You just confirmed that

that you post bullshit.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:32 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:17:44 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>> 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 t
>>>>
>>>> Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.
>>>
>>> What group of people other than eliminationists
>>
>> Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>> meaningless drivel. Everyone.
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to feel that way

*Every* thinking person feels that way.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:31:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> 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".
>
> You're a strong atheist

I'm a weak or "negative" atheist. No "faith" involved.

On 1/14/2013 11:39 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton showed *Goo* to be a liar:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, George Plimpton shit on Goo's cracker face:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>
>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>
> How do you want us to think that

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You
know it, too.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [crap]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> 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
>
> How do you think he disagrees

James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit. Not in doubt.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
dogs, lied:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - 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.
>
> So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life

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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>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
>>
>> How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
>>animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
>>of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
>>getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
>>them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?
>>
>
>James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
>gibberish is bullshit.

They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
acknowledge the difference.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:07:21 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:13 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>>>meaningless drivel. Everyone.
>>
>> ONLY eliminationists have reason to feel that way Goob, and NO ONE else.
>>That's why you can't even pretend that anyone else does, Goo.
>
>*Every* thinking person feels that way.

I have no reason to avoid considering the lives of the chickens I eat Goo,
or the lives of turkey or cattle or fish or pigs. The pigs and fish probably
don't have very good lives Goob, but from my experience most cattle and poultry
have decent lives of positive value, with the exception of most commercial
layers and of course their brothers. But you can't appreciate any distinctions,
Goo.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:35:22 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>> LOL!!! You just confirmed that you can't comprehend the distinction between
>>these two different meanings for the word "life". Well, that does explain why
>>you couldn't acknowledge or appreciate it either. Strange though that in the
>>past you tried to act like you could appreciate it, but maybe you were just
>>parroting something you found somewhere else. Or...maybe you unlearned again...
>>Does trying to think about the different meanings make you feel "dirty"? Now
>>that we mention it it's odd that blatantly lying doesn't seem to make you feel
>>dirty at all, but considering the animals you contribute to the lives and deaths
>>of does.
>
>That you make up bullshit - that's what he confirmed.

I pointed out the distinction between 2 different meanings for the word
"life", and he couldn't appreciate it. Confirmed.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:13:43 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:39:20 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>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???
>>>
>>>He has attempted
>>
>> How do you want us to think that persuading people to believe life is not a
>>benefit could help promote decent AW over elimination, Goo? Your dishonest
>>seeming claim certainly favors elimination over AW Goober, that much is very
>>obvious, but how do you want people to think your claim secretly helps favor AW?
>>
>>Prediction: Goo can't even make an attempt to pretend that it does, revealing
>>himself once again.
>
>Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit

Making that claim favors elimination ONLY Goober, and you can't even pretend
it in any way favors AW.

On 1/15/2013 12:41 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:25 -0800, George H. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:35:22 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 make up drivel and expel it like vomit. You are aggressively ignorant.
>>>
>>> You just confirmed that
>>
>> That you make up bullshit - that's what he confirmed.
>
> I pointed out

You point out nothing.

On 1/15/2013 12:44 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:13:43 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:39:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 George to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>>>>>>>> reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not George.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a compliment or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>>>
>>>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to think that
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit
>
> Making that claim favors elimination ONLY Goober, and you can't even pretend
> it in any way favors AW.
>

On 1/15/2013 12:34 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Why do
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> How do you think he
>>>
>>
>> James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
>> gibberish is bullshit.
>
> They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

On 1/15/2013 12:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:07:21 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:13 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, 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 for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, 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 eliminationists
>>>>
>>>> Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>>>> meaningless drivel. Everyone.
>>>
>>> ONLY eliminationists have
>>
>> *Every* thinking person feels that way.
>
> I have no reason to avoid considering the lives of the chickens

You have no reason *TO* consider those lives as morally meaningful,
*Goo* - and in fact, you don't. Proved.

On 1/15/2013 12:44 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:13:43 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:39:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 George to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>>>>>>>> reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not George.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a compliment or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>>>
>>>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to think that
>>
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You know it, too.
>
> Making that claim

Making that observation of demonstrated *fact*, ****wit, shoots your
stupid story to pieces.

On 1/14/2013 11:39 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton showed *Goo* to be a liar:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, George Plimpton shit on Goo's cracker face:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>
>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>
> How do you want us to think that

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You
know it, too.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:31:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> 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".
>
> You're a strong atheist

I'm a weak or "negative" atheist. No "faith" involved.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [crap]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> 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
>
> How do you think he disagrees

James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit. Not in doubt.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
dogs, lied:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - 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.
>
> So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life

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

On 1/14/2013 11:35 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
> LOL!!! You just confirmed that

that you post bullshit.

On 1/14/2013 11:35 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> LOL!!! You just confirmed that

That you make up bullshit - that's what he confirmed.

It's bullshit that every serious anti-"ar" poster has called bullshit.

On 1/14/2013 11:37 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life

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

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
dogs, lied:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:46:24 -0700, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Casanova - and *Goo* knows it's Bob - 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.
>
> So we don't get to find out what you want us to think is preventing life

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

On 1/15/2013 12:34 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Why do
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> How do you think he
>>>
>>
>> James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
>> gibberish is bullshit.
>
> They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

On 1/15/2013 12:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:07:21 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:13 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, 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 for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, 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 eliminationists
>>>>
>>>> Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>>>> meaningless drivel. Everyone.
>>>
>>> ONLY eliminationists have
>>
>> *Every* thinking person feels that way.
>
> I have no reason to avoid considering the lives of the chickens

You have no reason *TO* consider those lives as morally meaningful,
*Goo* - and in fact, you don't. Proved.

On 1/15/2013 12:41 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:25 -0800, George H. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:35:22 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:17:01 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:09:10 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:49 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 make up drivel and expel it like vomit. You are aggressively ignorant.
>>>
>>> You just confirmed that
>>
>> That you make up bullshit - that's what he confirmed.
>
> I pointed out

You point out nothing.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:36 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:07 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:32 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:17:44 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:15:18 -0800, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>> 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 t
>>>>
>>>> Nothing but meaningless drivel - pure bullshit.
>>>
>>> What group of people other than eliminationists
>>
>> Everyone knows your "getting to experience life" nonsense is bullshit -
>> meaningless drivel. Everyone.
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to feel that way

*Every* thinking person feels that way.

On 1/15/2013 12:44 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:13:43 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:39:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 George to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>>>>>>>> reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not George.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a compliment or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>>>
>>>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to think that
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit
>
> Making that claim favors elimination ONLY Goober, and you can't even pretend
> it in any way favors AW.
>

On 1/14/2013 11:39 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton showed *Goo* to be a liar:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, Bob Casanova - no doubt - 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, George Plimpton shit on Goo's cracker face:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>
>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>
> How do you want us to think that

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You
know it, too.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:31:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:58:56 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> 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".
>
> You're a strong atheist

I'm a weak or "negative" atheist. No "faith" involved.

On 1/15/2013 12:44 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:13:43 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:39:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:35 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:07:12 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, George Pimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 George to be that honest in over a dozen years of
>>>>>>>>>>> reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not George.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a compliment or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have nothing to teach.
>>>>
>>>> He has attempted to teach you the truth - truth to which you deliberately blind yourself.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to think that
>>
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You know it, too.
>
> Making that claim

Making that observation of demonstrated *fact*, ****wit, shoots your
stupid story to pieces.

On 1/14/2013 11:38 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit
> David Harrison senseless:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*
>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton beat ****wit
>>> David Harrison senseless:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton beat
>>>>> ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison
>>>>>> - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs,
>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton beat
>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David
>>>>>>>> Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding
>>>>>>>> fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>> beat ****wit David Harrison senseless:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [crap]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> 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
>
> How do you think he disagrees

James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit. Not in doubt.