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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 07:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:59 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:45 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, [email protected] pointed out:

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

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

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

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

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

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

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

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

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

It's a forgery - not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.


It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.


It's YOUR quote Goo, but if you want to pretend it's a forgery then try
presenting some reason to think so. Also Goob, if you want people to think you
think you disagree with yourself about any of your above quotes, then YOU need
to try explaining how you want them to think you do. Try now Goo. GO!:


(correct prediction: the Goober can't explain how he wants people to think he
thinks he disagrees with himself about any of his quotes that I share, because
he agrees with himself about every one of them)

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 07:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist,


So do animals in similar positions.


No.


LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
it's hilarious Goo.

life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.


I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.


You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.


It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:


(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

Show it.

[snip mangled fake quotes]

I showed that

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

as always if you want people to think


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


If you want anyone to think I'm lying


Everyone already does.

  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:




If you want people to think you disagree with

It's a forgery - not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with


It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.


It's YOUR quote


Not anyone's quote, Goo. It's your ham-handed shitty editing job. It's
bullshit - not what anyone actually said.

  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.


No. You're talking - you have *always* been blabbering - about "future farm animals." Stop lying.


LOL!!! The idea that


You were *only* talking about future farm animals, Goo.



  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

So do animals in similar positions.


No.


LOL!!! The idea that


No.



You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.


It often appears that it is a benefit


No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, ****wit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, ****wit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, ****wit.

  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/31/2012 11:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.


No.


LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
it's hilarious Goo.

life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.


You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.


It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:


(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)


  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


If you want anyone to think I'm lying


Everyone already thinks you're lying, Goo.

  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 08:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:


It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.


It's YOUR quote


It's not a quote at all, ****wit. It's a forgery - proved.

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * * The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


* * * * *It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


* * * * *It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


* * * * That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * * *Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * *born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * *that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * *are prevented.
* * * * * *****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * * *The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * *are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * **will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * *lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * *if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * *whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * *them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * *****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?

He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Ball?


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:06 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 02:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? ****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. ****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. ****wit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


He's just ****ed. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?

  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. The
first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
prevents their conception and birth. When it became apparent to me, in
the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
to identify who or what would experience it. I was after him for over
nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
to him, one of which was the unborn animals. Finally, in August 2000,
some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. But why
wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
conceive of the answer? And what about all his other statements that
support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
or "pre-exist", in some sense? For example:

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999

If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
****wit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v

It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
that haven't been conceived. How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
think they exist in some weird sense? How *else* could he say that
something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? It is
obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
before they are actually alive. Of course, it's always possible that he
isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
caught him in a different lie.

So, that takes care of lie #1: if we are to take him at his word that
it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. He
only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.

Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". We can see that that's a lie
first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
experiencing "unfairness". All of those statements demonstrate that he
considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. This is obvious
and beyond dispute.

The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
unconceived animals are "something".

Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
*explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
believe it. You *know* he believes it. The only reason you wish to
pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. That, Woopert, is
evidence of your psychosis.
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:52 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * * *The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


* * * * * It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


* * * * * It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


* * * * *That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * * are prevented.
* * * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said.. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. *Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" *However, recall that he said:

* * * * I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
* * * * presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
* * * * post my spew as everyone else does.
* * * * ****wit - 11/30/1999

So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. *It *is* his idea. *How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view. If
you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
him.

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? *****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. *****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. *In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. *****wit doesn't care about that. *He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. *If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.

He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were, but you also made the statement that I am psychotic, and I
was curious about what had led you to that conclusion.
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
****wit - 11/30/1999

So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


If you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
him.


You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? ****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. ****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. ****wit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.


That doesn't follow.


He's just ****ed. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were,


Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017