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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:39 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 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.



****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:42 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 Aug 2, 4:38*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Aug., 15:38, George Plimpton wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than you?


No.


People in the grip of delusions often refuse to consider any
possibility that they might be wrong.


You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. *A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.


I do not believe that I am an ethicist


You fancy yourself one.


You live in a fantasy world.


No. *You *do* fancy yourself an ethicist. *You've even boasted of having
been invited to give "talks" on ethics, as if you're qualified to do so.


No, I don't. However I am qualified to give talks on ethics.

A delusion of competence in what domain?
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:43 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 Aug 2, 4:39*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.









* *Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.









I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:50 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 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.



I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn

  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:51 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 Aug 2, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.









* * Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


That was quite funny as well.











I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:02 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 8/2/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 4:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


That was quite funny as well.


That's lovely.




I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.

  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:06 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 Aug 2, 5:02*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 2, 4:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. *Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.









* * *Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


That was quite funny as well.


That's lovely.











I don't hate you


Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:11 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

Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:

I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.


That was very wobbly.



You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


That was quite funny as well.


That's lovely.




Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?


snicker

  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:03 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 2 Aug., 17:11, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:

I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. *Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.


That was very wobbly.


I would be interested in knowing why you think that.









You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.


No.


Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


That was quite funny as well.


That's lovely.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?


snicker


If it's a rational belief, there must be a rational foundation for it.
Why can't you just show us what the rational foundation is?
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

Rupert wrote:
On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch wrote:
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.


He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.


Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?


He is not prepared to accept that opponents of AR disagree with his pet
argument. There have been quite a few others too, before you came along,
when this was a very lively interesting forum, unlike now. I think there
may be a fuzzy area here between self-delusion (cognitive dissonance)
and outright lying. Is he lying is his brain just will not allow him to
accept the obvious truth? The difficultly in his case I think is that if
he allows himself to accept the flaw in his argument then he may be
forced to confront the same issue with his rationalization for raising
fighting cocks. "They get to experience life because he raises them"
gets him off the hook, he believes.



  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:32 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

Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:

On 2 Aug., 17:11, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:

I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.


That was very wobbly.


I would be interested in knowing why you think that.


Really?


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?


snicker


If it's a rational belief, there must be a rational foundation for it.


There is.

  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:37 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 8/2/2012 11:26 AM, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch wrote:
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.

He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.


Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?


He is not prepared to accept that opponents of AR disagree with his pet
argument.


He is either unable or unwilling to understand that his pet argument is
garbage. It has been demolished; there was never anything substantive
to it.

It does seem too implausible that ****wit wouldn't know that his
argument was destroyed more than a decade ago (actually, close to a
century ago.) The fact he sticks with it is part of the compelling
evidence that he is merely a troll.


There have been quite a few others too, before you came along,
when this was a very lively interesting forum, unlike now. I think there
may be a fuzzy area here between self-delusion (cognitive dissonance)
and outright lying. Is he lying is his brain just will not allow him to
accept the obvious truth? The difficultly in his case I think is that if
he allows himself to accept the flaw in his argument then he may be
forced to confront the same issue with his rationalization for raising
fighting cocks. "They get to experience life because he raises them"
gets him off the hook, he believes.


  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:49 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 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

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


Here's how we know Goob has been lying about this for years. All the years
he's been lying about what I believe, Goo has also been aware that:

"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo

Here's the whole quote proving the Goober has known the entire time he has been
lying to people about this, and dishonestly posts only part of the quote in his
contemptible attempt to promote one of his favorite lies:

"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.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration."

So we know Goo is deliberately lying. The question is WHY is Goo lying about
this particular thing, and making such a strong attempt to promote his lies? So
what if I did believe in multiple lives as billions of people do...so what??? I
don't. I do consider the possibility but don't have any true belief about it.
But what if I did? Why is it so important to the Goober to try to make people
believe this particular thing? How could Goo think it could possibly make him
ethically superior if he fools someone into believing his lies?
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:49 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 Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT), 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.


It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard
trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did
believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.
Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the
possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why
is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?
How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???

  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:50 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 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, 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.


You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can
you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
incapable of even making an attempt.

BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
consider the possibility unlike yourself.

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


I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
on individual interpretation. Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
out that they don't? Do you think it's an attack on Zebras when people point out
that they have stripes? Do you think it's an attack on meat consumers to point
out that they contribute to life for livestock?

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.


That's a blatant lie I doubt anyone is stupid enough to believe...except
MAYBE for yourself, but doubt even you are honestly that stupid.

Since billions of people DO believe in multiple lives, why is it so
important to you Goos to get people to think I do to? Do you even have an idea
why it's important to you for people to believe that particular lie? What if I
was a Hindu and did believe it? Then what?


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 06:12 PM.

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