****wit David Harrison, convicted felon who lives in the past, lied:

>
> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
> something we each figure out for ourselves. During that time I learned life
> doesn't have to be "good" in order for it to still be of positive value for

You blabber a lot about what you learned in "grade school." What you
learned in your deep-South cracker "grade school" was a lot of
Confederate bullshit attempting to justify slavery. It was all wrong.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings öv>
wrote:

>On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>>
>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>>
>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>>
>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>>
>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>> McCallum?
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>
>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>
>I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>
>Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>committee members into a coma.

That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
"animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
also claims:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:54:48 -0800, Goo maundered:

>dh pointed out:
>
>>
>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>> something we each figure out for ourselves. During that time I learned life
>> doesn't have to be "good" in order for it to still be of positive value for
>
>You blabber a lot about what you learned in "grade school." What you
>learned in your deep-South cracker "grade school" was a lot of
>Confederate bullshit attempting to justify slavery. It was all wrong.

No Goo. That was in PA. Even in PA grade school teachers understand that
some slaves had lives of positive value Goob. But if you can't appreciate it for
any creatures at all, then we can't expect you to appreciate it regarding
slavery which you don't, Goo.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:45 -0800, Goo maundered to himself:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:18:01 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Always
>>>>
>>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>>>how a concise person writes.
>>>
>>>"So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>>>you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>>>want them to think you are dual personality."
>>
>> It's hard to say about that last part. When asked about the supposed
>>superiority of the elimination objective, and often even when not asked, Goo has
>>made claims such as:
>>
>>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
>>words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
>>in self defense. There's your answer. " - 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
>>
>>etc...ect.... Sometimes the Goober will respond that his claims are all true
>>statements, but other times Goo wants to deny that they're his quotes. I know
>>they are his quotes so that lie goes nowhere. But! I give Goo the opportunity to
>>try to tell people how he wants them to think he disagrees with himself about
>>some or all of his quotes, in case he wants people to think he does. Goo can
>>never say, showing that he does agree with himself about all of it.
>
>You didn't understand any of it, Goo.

LOL!!!!!!!

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:54:48 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>> something we each figure out for ourselves. During that time I learned life
>>> doesn't have to be "good" in order for it to still be of positive value for
>>
>> You blabber a lot about what you learned in "grade school." What you
>> learned in your deep-South cracker "grade school" was a lot of
>> Confederate bullshit attempting to justify slavery. It was all wrong.
>
> No.

Yes.

> That was

You did not learn anything in "grade school" about "getting to
experience life" as a justification for slavery or animal husbandry.

Stop lying, *Goo*.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:45 -0800, George Plimpton made ****wit *Goo* David Harrison eat shit:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:18:01 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Always
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>>>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>>>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>>>> how a concise person writes.
>>>>
>>>> "So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>>>> you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>>>> want them to think you are dual personality."
>>>
>>> It's hard to say about that last part.
>>
>> You didn't understand any of it, Goo.
>
> LOL!!!!!!!

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

In article >,
George Plimpton > wrote:

> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
> futility alive with:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:45 -0800, George Plimpton made ****wit *Goo* David Harrison eat shit:
> >
> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:18:01 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
> >>>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
> >>>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Always
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
> >>>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
> >>>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
> >>>> how a concise person writes.
> >>>>
> >>>> "So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
> >>>> you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
> >>>> want them to think you are dual personality."
> >>>
> >>> It's hard to say about that last part.
> >>
> >> You didn't understand any of it, Goo.
> >
> > LOL!!!!!!!
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish I could enjoy this thread,
but lack the gumption to read it.

--
Michael Press

On Dec 3, 11:56*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>> * * Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing..
>
> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv..org,
> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>
> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good *mathematician."
>
> >>>>>>> * * * *I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? *No. *So you don't know the first thing about what
> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>
> >>>>> * * * So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>
> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>
> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> >>>> McCallum?
>
> >>> Which one?
>
> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>
> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>
> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
> >committee members into a coma.
>
> * * That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
> also claims:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???

I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.

I linked to this thesis:

http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf

Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
random output of a computer program?

Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
McCallum?

On 12/4/2012 12:56 AM, Michael Press wrote:
> In article >,
> George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>> futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:45 -0800, George Plimpton made ****wit *Goo* David Harrison eat shit:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:18:01 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>>>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>>>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Always
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>>>>>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>>>>>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>>>>>> how a concise person writes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>>>>>> you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>>>>>> want them to think you are dual personality."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to say about that last part.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't understand any of it, Goo.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I wish I could enjoy this thread,
> but lack the gumption to read it.

Okay.

In article >,
"Delma T. Ivey" > wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 12:56 AM, Michael Press wrote:
>> In article >,
>> George Plimpton > wrote:
>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
>>> futility alive with:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:45 -0800, George Plimpton made ****wit *Goo* David Harrison eat shit:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:18:01 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year stri
ng of futility alive with:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>>>>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>>>>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Always
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>>>>>>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>>>>>>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>>>>>>> how a concise person writes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>>>>>>> you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>>>>>>> want them to think you are dual personality."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to say about that last part.
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't understand any of it, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> I wish I could enjoy this thread,
>> but lack the gumption to read it.
>
> Okay.

Delma injects a noncommittal response in order
to play follow-up games.

Shame on you, Delma
and nerts to you for getting caught at it.

--
Michael Press

On 12/3/2012 3:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings öv>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>>>
>>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>>>
>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>>>
>>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>>> McCallum?
>>>>
>>>> Which one?
>>>
>>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>
>> I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>> believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>
>> Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>> If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>> committee members into a coma.
>
> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
> also claims:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???

I think he would have a hard time proving that a domestic animal such as
a cat is not bettered by human ownership. Many people love and take
good care of their pet cats.

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On 12/4/2012 6:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>
>>>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>
>>>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>
>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>>>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>>>> McCallum?
>>
>>>>> Which one?
>>
>>>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>>>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>>>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>>>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>>>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>>>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>>>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>>>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>>>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>>>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>
>>> I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>>> believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>
>>> Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>>> If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>>> committee members into a coma.
>>
>> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>> also claims:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>
> I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>
> I linked to this thesis:
>
> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
> random output of a computer program?
>
> Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> McCallum?

I think people doubting Ph.D claims should be shot. I also believe
people making false Ph.D. claims should be shot.

The reason I am against the doubt of Ph.D. claims is that people go into
it with not a shred of evidence and make a fuzzy judgement based on
their view of the person. If you have ever heard of the tale of four
wisemen and an elephant, this is appropriate. I can understand someone
going to specific, industry-proven lengths to disprove a Ph.D., but all
I have ever seen is hand waving and bullshit.

It is just a little bit degrading to go to all that length to achieve a
Ph.D. and then have some yokel decide you do not have a Ph.D. based on
his extremely narrow view of you. Bring him the thesis and he looks
past it. Show him your diploma and he bends it and crinkles it yet is
unmoving and unswayed in his judgement. JUST WHAT THE **** DO YOU WANT
FOR PROOF, TIMOTHY?

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Dec 3, 11:56*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>> >,
>> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>>>> >,
>> >>>>>>>>>> * * Rupert > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * Rupert > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good *mathematician."
>>
>> >>>>>>> * * * *I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>
>> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? *No. *So you don't know the first thing about what
>> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>
>> >>>>> * * * So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>
>> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>
>> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>> >>>> McCallum?
>>
>> >>> Which one?
>>
>> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>
>> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>
>> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>> >committee members into a coma.
>>
>> * * That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>> also claims:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>
>I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>
>I linked to this thesis:
>
>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
>Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
>random output of a computer program?

OK.

>Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>McCallum?

Probably. So if you didn't write it that would mean you're either not Rupert
McCallum or you're a different Rupert McCallum. Neither seem more unlikely than
that a person who honestly doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of
positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything" could be mentally
capable of obtaining a PhD.

On Dec 6, 9:00*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> >> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>> In article
> >> >>>>>>>> >,
> >> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> In article
> >> >>>>>>>>>> >,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> >> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> >> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> >> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> >> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> >> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> >> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
> >> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> >> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> >> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> >> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> >> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>
> >> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
> >> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>
> >> >>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> >> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> >> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
> >> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
> >> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>
> >> >>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
> >> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
> >> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
> >> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
> >> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
> >> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
> >> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
> >> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
> >> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
> >> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>
> >> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
> >> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>
> >> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> >> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> >> >>>> McCallum?
>
> >> >>> Which one?
>
> >> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
> >> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
> >> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
> >> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
> >> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
> >> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
> >> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
> >> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
> >> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
> >> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>
> >> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
> >> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>
> >> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep..
> >> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
> >> >committee members into a coma.
>
> >> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
> >> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
> >> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals.. Yet he
> >> also claims:
>
> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> >> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
> >> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
> >> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
> >> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
> >> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
> >> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>
> >I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>
> >I linked to this thesis:
>
> >http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> >Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
> >random output of a computer program?
>
> * * OK.
>
> >Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> >McCallum?
>
> * * Probably. So if you didn't write it that would mean you're either not Rupert
> McCallum or you're a different Rupert McCallum. Neither seem more unlikely than
> that a person who honestly doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of
> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything" could be mentally
> capable of obtaining a PhD.

Ok. Do you think that I control the website rupertmcallum.com ?

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:36:37 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 12/4/2012 6:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>>> also claims:
>>>
>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>>
>>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
.. . .
>The reason I am against the doubt of Ph.D. claims is that people go into
>it with not a shred of evidence and make a fuzzy judgement based on
>their view of the person.

As I pointed out above he can't comprehend a simple concept like the value
of life. We discussed it in grade school regarding slavery in Amarica and no one
in my class had any problem with it, yet Rupert doesn't think it means anything.
How could a guy who can't comprehend a simple aspect of life that we had no
problem with in grade school obtain a PhD in something a lot more complicated?
From my pov it seems more likely than not that he would lie about something like
that, and also more likely than not that a person with his mental limitations
could not obtain a PhD. Then there's also the FACT that his brother Goo has lied
about having a PhD twice and lied about having been a Marine once that I'm aware
of, meaning he has undoubtedly lied about them a number of more times than that.
I don't believe Rupert would be bothered in the least by lying about this, and
certainly don't believe such a thing is in any way below him.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:02:29 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Dec 6, 9:00*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >>>>>>>> >,
>> >> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>> >> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>> >> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>> >> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>> >> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>> >> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>> >> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>> >> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>> >> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>> >> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>
>> >> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>> >> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>
>> >> >>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>> >> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>> >> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>> >> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>> >> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>> >> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>> >> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>> >> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>> >> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>> >> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>
>> >> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>> >> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>
>> >> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>> >> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>> >> >>>> McCallum?
>>
>> >> >>> Which one?
>>
>> >> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>> >> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>> >> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>> >> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>> >> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>> >> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>> >> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>> >> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>> >> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>> >> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>
>> >> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>> >> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>
>> >> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>> >> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>> >> >committee members into a coma.
>>
>> >> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>> >> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>> >> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>> >> also claims:
>>
>> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> >> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>> >> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>> >> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>> >> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>> >> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>> >> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>>
>> >I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>>
>> >I linked to this thesis:
>>
>> >http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>> >Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
>> >random output of a computer program?
>>
>> * * OK.
>>
>> >Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>> >McCallum?
>>
>> * * Probably. So if you didn't write it that would mean you're either not Rupert
>> McCallum or you're a different Rupert McCallum. Neither seem more unlikely than
>> that a person who honestly doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of
>> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything" could be mentally
>> capable of obtaining a PhD.
>
>Ok. Do you think that I control the website rupertmcallum.com ?

If you're not lying about the PhD then you are lying about being too stupid
to comprehend imo, as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:

"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place."

Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
the way you described. But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:30:06 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 12/3/2012 3:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings öv>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>>>> McCallum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>>>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>>>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>>>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>>>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>>>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>>>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>>>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>>>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>>>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>>
>>> I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>>> believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>>
>>> Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>>> If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>>> committee members into a coma.
>>
>> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>> also claims:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>
>I think he would have a hard time proving that a domestic animal such as
>a cat is not bettered by human ownership. Many people love and take
>good care of their pet cats.

People like that can't comprehend how any domestic animals could have lives
of positive value for the animals themselves, much less can they distinguish
between which do and which do not. Doing so works against the elimination
objective they put their faith in.

On 12/10/2012 3:41 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:30:06 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2012 3:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings öv>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>>>>> McCallum?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which one?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>>>>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>>>>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>>>>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>>>>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>>>>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>>>>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>>>>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>>>>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>>>>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>>>
>>>> I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>>>> believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>>>> If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>>>> committee members into a coma.
>>>
>>> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>>> also claims:
>>>
>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>>
>>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>>
>> I think he would have a hard time proving that a domestic animal such as
>> a cat is not bettered by human ownership. Many people love and take
>> good care of their pet cats.
>
> People like that can't comprehend how any domestic animals could have lives
> of positive value for the animals themselves, much less can they distinguish
> between which do and which do not. Doing so works against the elimination
> objective they put their faith in.
>

My cat was very happy being domestic. We let it outside into the great
forest and it came back every night to stay inside. Then on a trip
cross the state, the cat escaped into the wilderness. We speculated
that it would not live long there alone against the wilds. Clearly it
was happy being with us, and we can speculate that it would be unhappy
when it died. QED.

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On Dec 10, 11:40*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:02:29 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 9:00 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> In article
> >> >> >>>>>>>> >,
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> In article
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >,
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
> >> >> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>
> >> >> >>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> >> >> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> >> >> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
> >> >> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
> >> >> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>
> >> >> >>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
> >> >> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
> >> >> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
> >> >> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
> >> >> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
> >> >> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
> >> >> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
> >> >> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
> >> >> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
> >> >> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>
> >> >> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
> >> >> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>
> >> >> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> >> >> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> >> >> >>>> McCallum?
>
> >> >> >>> Which one?
>
> >> >> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
> >> >> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
> >> >> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
> >> >> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
> >> >> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
> >> >> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
> >> >> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
> >> >> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
> >> >> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
> >> >> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>
> >> >> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
> >> >> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>
> >> >> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
> >> >> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
> >> >> >committee members into a coma.
>
> >> >> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
> >> >> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
> >> >> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
> >> >> also claims:
>
> >> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> >> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> >> >> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
> >> >> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
> >> >> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
> >> >> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
> >> >> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
> >> >> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>
> >> >I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>
> >> >I linked to this thesis:
>
> >> >http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> >> >Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
> >> >random output of a computer program?
>
> >> OK.
>
> >> >Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> >> >McCallum?
>
> >> Probably. So if you didn't write it that would mean you're either not Rupert
> >> McCallum or you're a different Rupert McCallum. Neither seem more unlikely than
> >> that a person who honestly doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of
> >> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything" could be mentally
> >> capable of obtaining a PhD.
>
> >Ok. Do you think that I control the website rupertmcallum.com ?
>
> * * If you're not lying about the PhD then you are lying about being too stupid
> to comprehend imo,

To comprehend what?

I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
value" which conveys any useful information.

Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
perform?

> as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>
> *"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place."
>
> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
> the way you described. But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
> making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:10:49 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 12/10/2012 3:41 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:30:06 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/3/2012 3:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings öv>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>>>>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>>>>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>>>>>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>>>>>>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>>>>>>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>>>>>>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>>>>>>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>>>>>>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>>>>>>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>>>>>>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>>>>>>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>>>>>>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>>>>>>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>>>>>>>> McCallum?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>>>>>> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>>>>>> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>>>>>> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>>>>>> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>>>>>> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>>>>>> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>>>>>> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>>>>>> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>>>>>> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>>>>> believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>>>>> If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>>>>> committee members into a coma.
>>>>
>>>> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>>>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>>>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>>>> also claims:
>>>>
>>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>>>
>>>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>>>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>>>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>>>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>>>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>>>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>>>
>>> I think he would have a hard time proving that a domestic animal such as
>>> a cat is not bettered by human ownership. Many people love and take
>>> good care of their pet cats.
>>
>> People like that can't comprehend how any domestic animals could have lives
>> of positive value for the animals themselves, much less can they distinguish
>> between which do and which do not. Doing so works against the elimination
>> objective they put their faith in.
>>
>
>My cat was very happy being domestic. We let it outside into the great
>forest and it came back every night to stay inside. Then on a trip
>cross the state, the cat escaped into the wilderness.

Or maybe a hawk go it. I doubt the cat was really trying to "escape", but
most cats aren't like most dogs imo and most cats wouldn't be likely to keep up
with where their master is and be sure to not get lost.

>We speculated
>that it would not live long there alone against the wilds.

It may very well have been dead by the time you found out it was missing.

>Clearly it
>was happy being with us, and we can speculate that it would be unhappy
>when it died. QED.

Yes. The main thing to keep in mind is that advocates of the gross misnomer
"animal rights" are not in favor of better lives, rights, or anything at all for
domestic animals. They want domestic animals eliminated, which is why the better
term for them is eliminationists. Eliminationists want to eliminate all domestic
animals including pets. No more cats...no more dogs...no more horses...

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Dec 10, 11:40*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:02:29 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Dec 6, 9:00 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:53:28 -0800, Homer Stille Cummings v>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On 11/30/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 4:41 pm, Donn Messenheimer >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> webpage here.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I asked in response to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>> >> >> >>>>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>> >> >> >>>>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>> >> >> >>>>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>> >> >> >>>>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>> >> >> >>>>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>> >> >> >>>>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>> >> >> >>>>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>> >> >> >>>>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>> >> >> >>>>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>> >> >> >>>>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>> >> >> >>>>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>> >> >> >>>>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
>> >> >> >>>> randomly generated by some computer program.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>> >> >> >>>> McCallum?
>>
>> >> >> >>> Which one?
>>
>> >> >> >> I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
>> >> >> >> this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
>> >> >> >> authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
>> >> >> >> course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
>> >> >> >> by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
>> >> >> >> the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
>> >> >> >> Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
>> >> >> >> individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
>> >> >> >> "Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
>> >> >> >> you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.
>>
>> >> >> >I think he means which of your personalities - we've good reason to
>> >> >> >believe you suffer from a multiple personality disorder.
>>
>> >> >> >Jesus Haitch Christ, your paragraph above damned near put me to sleep.
>> >> >> >If you wrote like that in your thesis, I imagine it put some of your
>> >> >> >committee members into a coma.
>>
>> >> >> That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or
>> >> >> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for domestic
>> >> >> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals. Yet he
>> >> >> also claims:
>>
>> >> >> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> >> >> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> >> >> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't
>> >> >> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of the
>> >> >> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a distinction
>> >> >> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how
>> >> >> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a PhD in
>> >> >> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???
>>
>> >> >I'd still be curious to know your answer to the question I asked.
>>
>> >> >I linked to this thesis:
>>
>> >> >http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>>
>> >> >Now, would you agree that someone wrote this thesis? It's not just a
>> >> >random output of a computer program?
>>
>> >> OK.
>>
>> >> >Do you think that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
>> >> >McCallum?
>>
>> >> Probably. So if you didn't write it that would mean you're either not Rupert
>> >> McCallum or you're a different Rupert McCallum. Neither seem more unlikely than
>> >> that a person who honestly doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of
>> >> positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything" could be mentally
>> >> capable of obtaining a PhD.
>>
>> >Ok. Do you think that I control the website rupertmcallum.com ?
>>
>> * * If you're not lying about the PhD then you are lying about being too stupid
>> to comprehend imo,
>
>To comprehend what?
>
>I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>value" which conveys any useful information.

I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
that you're dependant on me for what positive value means? Of course I also have
to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you, and of
course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade, yet you act like you're too
stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid you'll
never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.

>Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
>particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
>perform?

I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done with countless
animals over the years and still do today. It's hard to believe anyone is too
stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since
grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives of
positive value, for example. That value changed for some of them sometimes, and
I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures
appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats. There
were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to
have lives of positive value. Most of the other animals not only appeared to
have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of course
will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing it
for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more evidence
you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable to
comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the
elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as you
do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough
percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for
domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that realistically
you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the knowledge
of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them, but
such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of someone
who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and
lives of negative value means anything.

>> as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
>> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>>
>> *"there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place."
>>
>> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
>> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
>> the way you described. But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
>> making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On Dec 12, 9:40*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
> >you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
> >value" which conveys any useful information.
>
> * * I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?

It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's
not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
background assumptions are.

> Of course I also have
> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,

I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.

> and of
> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,

This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
value" in sixth grade.

You have given no evidence that your belief that you understand the
concept of "life of positive value" isn't simply a delusion.

> yet you act like you're too
> stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid you'll
> never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.
>
> >Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
> >particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
> >perform?
>
> I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done with countless
> animals over the years and still do today.

And what would be the criteria for determining whether its life had
positive value?

> It's hard to believe anyone is too
> stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since
> grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives of
> positive value, for example.

So what were your grounds for coming to that conclusion?

> That value changed for some of them sometimes, and
> I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures
> appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats.. There
> were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to
> have lives of positive value.

What were the grounds for coming to that conclusion?

> Most of the other animals not only appeared to
> have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of course
> will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing it
> for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more evidence
> you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable to
> comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the
> elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as you
> do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough
> percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for
> domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that realistically
> you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the knowledge
> of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them, but
> such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of someone
> who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and
> lives of negative value means anything.>> as I've pointed out in the past.. I've also pointed out that
> >> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>
> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> in their place."
>
> >> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
> >> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
> >> the way you described.

What distinction do you have in mind here?

> But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
> >> making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On 12/12/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>
>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>
> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
> it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's
> not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
> only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
> about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
> background assumptions are.
>
>> Of course I also have
>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>
> I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.
>
>> and of
>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>
> This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
> value" in sixth grade.

A "life of positive value" is anything other than the guy or gal who
puts a bomb in the center of the earth and blows it apart. He or she is
living a life of "negative value" .

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Dec 12, 9:40*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>> >you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>> >value" which conveys any useful information.
>>
>> * * I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>
>It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>it's not precisely defined.

LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
define mine...LOL!!!

>It's a commonly understood concept.

It's meaningless unless YOU can define it. Try defining it. Go:

>That's
>not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
>only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
>about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
>background assumptions are.

That's easy. As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
value.

>> Of course I also have
>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>
>I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.

You really probably are too stupid for this, but a variation would be to say
that it's of positive value as long as the being would rather remain alive than
never have been born. There really is significant difference between the two,
but you probably could never appreciate anything about any of it. If you think
you can then try and we'll see how you do with it.

>> and of
>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>
>This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
>value" in sixth grade.
>
>You have given no evidence that your belief that you understand the
>concept of "life of positive value" isn't simply a delusion.

In fact it's very likely my dad used that phrase and is the one who pointed
out the difference between just being of positive value and the higher luxury of
actually being good. I've been aware of the concept, the differences, and that
term for as long as I can remember, and I never think of the distinction using
any other term. LOL....it's amusing that you think sixth graders couldn't
comprehend something so obvious and easy to understand... Maybe you really ARE
that stupid....

>> yet you act like you're too
>> stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid you'll
>> never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.
>>
>> >Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
>> >particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
>> >perform?
>>
>> I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done with countless
>> animals over the years and still do today.
>
>And what would be the criteria for determining whether its life had
>positive value?

If it seemed content and not to be afraid, uncomfortable, overly hungry,
overly thirsty, sick, tired, scared, etc.... Meaning if there wasn't enough
suffering FROM WHATEVER to make it of negative value. It's easy to comprehend,
so maybe you really are too stupid for the easiest of aspects of this issue.
That could explain why you took refuge in the misnomer...because you're just too
stupid to recognise how anything could be better than nothing. Amusing, but sad.

>> It's hard to believe anyone is too
>> stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since
>> grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives of
>> positive value, for example.
>
>So what were your grounds for coming to that conclusion?
>
>> That value changed for some of them sometimes, and
>> I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures
>> appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats. There
>> were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to
>> have lives of positive value.
>
>What were the grounds for coming to that conclusion?

Because some of them seemed to spend most if not all of their life overly
hungry and scared, and often in pain and often cold. It was in PA. In a similar
situation in GA it might seem a lot different. Remember that to me in general
all the rest of the animals appeared to have lives of positive value. The cats
were a misfit sort of thing, and that particular problem happens frequently with
cats and sometimes dogs.

>> Most of the other animals not only appeared to
>> have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of course
>> will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing it
>> for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more evidence
>> you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable to
>> comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the
>> elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as you
>> do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough
>> percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for
>> domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that realistically
>> you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the knowledge
>> of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them, but
>> such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of someone
>> who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and
>> lives of negative value means anything.>> as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
>> >> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>>
>> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> >> in their place."
>>
>> >> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
>> >> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
>> >> the way you described.
>
>What distinction do you have in mind here?

Let's go with what you've pretended to comprehend in the past:

"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert

you have said specifically some grass raised cattle. So let's pretend that you
actually do feel that way about some grass raised cattle, but not about any
cattle who are fed grain. Remember we're only considering value of life TO THE
ANIMALS in this case. So you would have to have some distinction in your
feverish little mind making life of positive value TO some grass raised cattle,
but of negative value TO all grain fed cattle and probably some/many grass
raised cattle as well. But you can't make a distinction even in your own little
brain, can you?

>> But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
>> >> making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:31:09 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 12/12/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>>
>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>>
>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>> it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's
>> not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
>> only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
>> about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
>> background assumptions are.
>>
>>> Of course I also have
>>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>>
>> I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.
>>
>>> and of
>>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
>>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
>>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>>
>> This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
>> value" in sixth grade.
>
>A "life of positive value" is anything other than the guy or gal who
>puts a bomb in the center of the earth and blows it apart. He or she is
>living a life of "negative value" .

We're talking about value of life to the individual living it. Some
livestock animals have lives of negative value and some of positive value.
That's true of all beings, including humans. Rupert thinks he can comprehend
what a "good" life is, but not one of positive value. Hilarious for a guy
claiming to have a PhD in math, but also absolutely pathetic. I've pointed out
to him that life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order to be of positive
value, but just not involve enough suffering to be of negative value. That's so
obvious and easy to understand that we discussed it in regards to slavery in
grade school and no one had any problem with it. Rupert would have been the only
person in the class who could not comprehend. If he honestly is too stupid to
comprehend, I can only believe he necessarily must be lying about having
obtained a PhD. If he really is that stupid I doubt he could even obtain a
driver's license, and in fact he does not have one. I don't doubt that he could
lie about having a PhD though, and I've seen his hero Goo do it more than once.

Long after I'm dead, this thread will commerate my time on the usnet.
And one of my grandkids will think, "Damn, Grandpa was a top-posting
bozo!"

--Tedward

<dh@.> wrote in message ...

>>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>>>
>>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>>> it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's
>>> not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
>>> only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
>>> about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
>>> background assumptions are.
>>>
>>>> Of course I also have
>>>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>>>
>>> I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.
>>>
>>>> and of
>>>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
>>>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
>>>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>>>
>>> This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
>>> value" in sixth grade.
>>
>>A "life of positive value" is anything other than the guy or gal who
>>puts a bomb in the center of the earth and blows it apart. He or she is
>>living a life of "negative value" .
>
> We're talking about value of life to the individual living it. Some
> livestock animals have lives of negative value and some of positive value.
> That's true of all beings, including humans. Rupert thinks he can comprehend
> what a "good" life is, but not one of positive value. Hilarious for a guy
> claiming to have a PhD in math, but also absolutely pathetic. I've pointed out
> to him that life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order to be of positive
> value, but just not involve enough suffering to be of negative value. That's so
> obvious and easy to understand that we discussed it in regards to slavery in
> grade school and no one had any problem with it. Rupert would have been the only
> person in the class who could not comprehend. If he honestly is too stupid to
> comprehend, I can only believe he necessarily must be lying about having
> obtained a PhD. If he really is that stupid I doubt he could even obtain a
> driver's license, and in fact he does not have one. I don't doubt that he could
> lie about having a PhD though, and I've seen his hero Goo do it more than once.

On Dec 13, 9:27*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
> >> >you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
> >> >value" which conveys any useful information.
>
> >> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
> >> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
> >> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
> >> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>
> >It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
> >understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
> >it's not precisely defined.
>
> * * LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
> define mine...LOL!!!
>

This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you
using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be
taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least
some idea of what it means. In the case of the term "life of positive
value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of
what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,
unlike your previous attempts.

> >It's a commonly understood concept.
>
> * * It's meaningless unless YOU can define it. Try defining it. Go:
>

There are different possible ways to spell out what a "good life"
involves, which could be the subject of reasonable debate. Some would
say that it involves one's life having a strong balance of hedonically
pleasant experiences over aversive ones, some would say that it
involves a strong balance of desire-satisfaction over desire-
frustration, some would say that it consists in the achievement of
"objective goods" like attainment of knowledge, awareness of true
beauty, loving and being loved by other people, and so forth. However,
there would be a significant degree of convergence among people when
it came to judging which lives were in fact reasonably good (both in
the cases of humans and nonhuman animals). It involves reference to
the level of well-being experienced by the individual. The notion of
"well-being" probably cannot be helpfully defined in other terms, but
it can be explained by giving examples of things which could be
plausibly thought to contribute to well-being. You could also define
it as involving being in a state that you have self-interested reasons
to want to be in.


> >That's
> >not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
> >only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
> >about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
> >background assumptions are.
>
> * * That's easy. As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
> value.
>

But we are talking about nonhuman animals who arguably cannot
conceptualize such issues.

> >> Of course I also have
> >> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>
> >I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.
>
> * * You really probably are too stupid for this, but a variation would be to say
> that it's of positive value as long as the being would rather remain alive than
> never have been born.

But as I say, a nonhuman animal would arguably not be able to
formulate such a question.

> There really is significant difference between the two,
> but you probably could never appreciate anything about any of it. If you think
> you can then try and we'll see how you do with it.
>
> >> and of
> >> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
> >> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
> >> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>
> >This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
> >value" in sixth grade.
>
> >You have given no evidence that your belief that you understand the
> >concept of "life of positive value" isn't simply a delusion.
>
> * * In fact it's very likely my dad used that phrase and is the one who pointed
> out the difference between just being of positive value and the higher luxury of
> actually being good. I've been aware of the concept, the differences, and that
> term for as long as I can remember, and I never think of the distinction using
> any other term. LOL....it's amusing that you think sixth graders couldn't
> comprehend something so obvious and easy to understand...

If it's so easy to understand, then why are you unable to give an
explanation of what you mean that conveys any useful information?

> Maybe you really ARE
> that stupid....
>
> >> yet you act like you're too
> >> stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid you'll
> >> never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.
>
> >> >Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
> >> >particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
> >> >perform?
>
> >> * * I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done with countless
> >> animals over the years and still do today.
>
> >And what would be the criteria for determining whether its life had
> >positive value?
>
> * * If it seemed content and not to be afraid, uncomfortable, overly hungry,
> overly thirsty, sick, tired, scared, etc.... Meaning if there wasn't enough
> suffering FROM WHATEVER to make it of negative value.

Which obviously just raises the question of what the criteria would be
for what counted as "enough suffering", which you've obviously given
no helpful information about.

> It's easy to comprehend,
> so maybe you really are too stupid for the easiest of aspects of this issue.
> That could explain why you took refuge in the misnomer...because you're just too
> stupid to recognise how anything could be better than nothing. Amusing, but sad.
>
> >> It's hard to believe anyone is too
> >> stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since
> >> grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives of
> >> positive value, for example.
>
> >So what were your grounds for coming to that conclusion?
>
> >> That value changed for some of them sometimes, and
> >> I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures
> >> appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats. There
> >> were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to
> >> have lives of positive value.
>
> >What were the grounds for coming to that conclusion?
>
> * * Because some of them seemed to spend most if not all of their life overly
> hungry and scared, and often in pain and often cold. It was in PA. In a similar
> situation in GA it might seem a lot different. Remember that to me in general
> all the rest of the animals appeared to have lives of positive value. The cats
> were a misfit sort of thing, and that particular problem happens frequently with
> cats and sometimes dogs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Most of the other animals not only appeared to
> >> have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of course
> >> will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing it
> >> for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more evidence
> >> you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable to
> >> comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the
> >> elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as you
> >> do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough
> >> percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for
> >> domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that realistically
> >> you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the knowledge
> >> of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them, but
> >> such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of someone
> >> who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and
> >> lives of negative value means anything.>> as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
> >> >> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>
> >> >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
> >> >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
> >> >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> >> >> in their place."
>
> >> >> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
> >> >> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
> >> >> the way you described.
>
> >What distinction do you have in mind here?
>
> * * Let's go with what you've pretended to comprehend in the past:
>
> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> you have said specifically some grass raised cattle. So let's pretend that you
> actually do feel that way about some grass raised cattle, but not about any
> cattle who are fed grain. Remember we're only considering value of life TO THE
> ANIMALS in this case.

That wasn't what I meant. I wasn't claiming that the cattle had
benefitted from coming into existence. I was speaking of the outcome
being better from the perspective of an impartial observer.

> So you would have to have some distinction in your
> feverish little mind making life of positive value TO some grass raised cattle,
> but of negative value TO all grain fed cattle and probably some/many grass
> raised cattle as well. But you can't make a distinction even in your own little
> brain, can you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,
> >> >> making you not want to comprehend the concept.

On 12/14/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>
>>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>>
>>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>>> it's not precisely defined.
>>
>> LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
>> define mine...LOL!!!
>>
>
> This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you
> using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be
> taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least
> some idea of what it means. In the case of the term "life of positive
> value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of
> what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,
> unlike your previous attempts.

You already know that he cannot define the terms, except tautologically.
You also know that *I* have told you what he really means by it: he
means existence for livestock animals. You know he doesn't care about
the welfare or quality of life of livestock animals at all, as I have
demonstrated many times:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

*Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - doesn't care about "decent lives of
possitive [sic] value", or animal welfare, in the least. He only cares
that they exist, so he can consume them. You know this. You *know*,
without any doubt, that his ignorant cracker bullshit about "decent
lives" is just a shitty attempt at a smokescreen that has been dissipated.

On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>>
>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>>
>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>> it's not precisely defined.
>
> LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
> define mine

You *can't* define it, ****wit. But in fact, there's no need for you to
define it - we already know that when you blabber about "decent lives of
possitive [sic] value", all you mean is existence. You want the
livestock to exist so you can consume them, and that's the *only*
reason. You give no consideration to their lives or welfare at all.


>> It's a commonly understood concept.
>
> It's meaningless unless

It has meaning. Rupert is correct.


>> That's
>> not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase
>> only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions
>> about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your
>> background assumptions are.
>
> That's easy.

Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.


> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
> value.

*FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.


>
>>> Of course I also have
>>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,
>>
>> I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.
>
> You really probably are too stupid for this, but

You're the stupid one here. You are the most profoundly, willfully
stupid person ever to post here.


>>> and of
>>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of
>>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and
>>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,
>>
>> This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive
>> value" in sixth grade.
>>
>> You have given no evidence that your belief that you understand the
>> concept of "life of positive value" isn't simply a delusion.
>
> In fact it's very likely my dad used that phrase and

Oh, I'll just *BET* he did! He was a stupid, lying, criminal cracker, too.


>>> yet you act like you're too
>>> stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid you'll
>>> never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.
>>>
>>>> Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a
>>>> particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you
>>>> perform?
>>>
>>> I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done

No, you haven't.


>>
>> And what would be the criteria for determining whether its life had
>> positive value?
>
> If it seemed content and not to be afraid, uncomfortable, overly hungry,
> overly thirsty, sick, tired, scared, etc

Whether it was or wasn't, existence - "getting to experience life" -
would not be a benefit to it, and no sane person would want a
hypothetical animal to come into existence out of a belief that to do so
would be a "benefit" to it.


>>> It's hard to believe anyone is too
>>> stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since
>>> grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives of
>>> positive value, for example.
>>
>> So what were your grounds for coming to that conclusion?
>>
>>> That value changed for some of them sometimes, and
>>> I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures
>>> appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats. There
>>> were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to
>>> have lives of positive value.
>>
>> What were the grounds for coming to that conclusion?
>
> Because some of them seemed to spend most if not all of their life overly
> hungry and scared, and often in pain and often cold.

Did you ask them if they wanted to continue to exist?


>>> Most of the other animals not only appeared to
>>> have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of course
>>> will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing it
>>> for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more evidence
>>> you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable to
>>> comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the
>>> elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as you
>>> do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough
>>> percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for
>>> domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that realistically
>>> you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the knowledge
>>> of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them, but
>>> such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of someone
>>> who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and
>>> lives of negative value means anything.>> as I've pointed out in the past. I've also pointed out that
>>>>> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe that:
>>>
>>>>> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be
>>>>> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather
>>>>> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>>>>> in their place."
>>>
>>>>> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals you
>>>>> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly feel
>>>>> the way you described.
>>
>> What distinction do you have in mind here?
>
> Let's go with what you've pretended to comprehend in the past:
>
> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> you have said specifically some grass raised cattle. So let's pretend that you
> actually do feel that way about some grass raised cattle, but not about any
> cattle who are fed grain. Remember we're only considering value of life TO THE
> ANIMALS

Zero. They can't place any value on life, and they do *NOT* consider it
a "benefit" to have come into existence - because it isn't one.

On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>
>
>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>> value.
>
> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.

This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
claim it is false.

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>>
>>
>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>>> value.
>>
>> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>
> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
> claim it is false.

You know that it is true. You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
for anything. Everyone knows it.

On 12/15/2012 4:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>>>
>>>
>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>>>> value.
>>>
>>> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>>
>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
>> claim it is false.
>
> You know that it is true. You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
> for anything. Everyone knows it.

It's not hard. Set out a platter of delicious celery for a cow for
seventeen days. Then make only hard granite available for eating. The
cow will soon be wishing for celery.

--
Who told you to think?
I don't give you enough
information to think.
You do what you're told, that's what you do.

On 12/15/2012 4:09 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 4:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>>>
>>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
>>> claim it is false.
>>
>> You know that it is true. You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
>> for anything. Everyone knows it.
>
> It's not hard.

You're right, it isn't. Non-human animals don't "wish". Every thinking
person knows this. Assuming you're a thinking person, you know it, too.

On Dec 15, 6:30*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
> >>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
> >>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>
> >>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
> >>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
> >>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
> >>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>
> >>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
> >>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
> >>> it's not precisely defined.
>
> >> * * *LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
> >> define mine...LOL!!!
>
> > This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you
> > using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be
> > taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least
> > some idea of what it means. In the case of the term "life of positive
> > value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of
> > what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,
> > unlike your previous attempts.
>
> You already know that he cannot define the terms, except tautologically.
> * You also know that *I* have told you what he really means by it: *he
> means existence for livestock animals. *You know he doesn't care about
> the welfare or quality of life of livestock animals at all, as I have
> demonstrated many times:
>
> * * * *It's not out of consideration for porcupines
> * * * *that we don't raise them for food. It's because
> * * * *they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
> * * * *don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
> * * * *either, but because they're fairly easy to
> * * * *raise.
> * * * *Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>
> * * * *I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> * * * *that all of the animals I eat had terrible
> * * * *lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
> * * * *because I don't care about them at all, but I
> * * * *would just ignore their suffering.
> * * * *Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> * * * *I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
> * * * *cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
> * * * *the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
> * * * *But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
> * * * *also....
> * * * *Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>
> * * * *I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> * * * *to make the effort.
> * * * *Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - doesn't care about "decent lives of
> possitive [sic] value", or animal welfare, in the least. *He only cares
> that they exist, so he can consume them. *You know this. *You *know*,
> without any doubt, that his ignorant cracker bullshit about "decent
> lives" is just a shitty attempt at a smokescreen that has been dissipated..

I don't know without any doubt that he doesn't care about animal
welfare in the least. I would say he probably doesn't care about it
enough to inflict any significant inconvenience on himself for the
sake of it. The same is probably true of quite a lot of people. But
that doesn't have any bearing on the merits of his argument, saying
that his argument should be rejected because he personally can't be
bothered taking any significant steps for the sake of animal welfare
would be an ad hominem fallacy.

On Dec 16, 12:17*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>
> > On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> >> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>
> >>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
> >>> value.
>
> >> *FAIL*. *No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>
> > This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. *Additionally, I
> > claim it is false.
>
> You know that it is true. *You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
> for anything. *Everyone knows it.

That's absolute nonsense. Actually, pretty much everyone, with some
notable exceptions such as yourself, knows perfectly well that many
nonhuman animals, certainly all mammals, have desires. It is common
sense. On the other hand, if you claimed that they haven't got the
conceptual resources to ponder the question of whether they wish to
remain alive, you'd probably be on pretty solid ground in the case of
most nonhuman mammals.

On Dec 16, 5:30*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 4:09 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/15/2012 4:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
> >>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>
> >>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
> >>>>> value.
>
> >>>> *FAIL*. *No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>
> >>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. *Additionally, I
> >>> claim it is false.
>
> >> You know that it is true. *You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
> >> for anything. *Everyone knows it.
>
> > It's not hard.
>
> You're right, it isn't. *Non-human animals don't "wish". *Every thinking
> person knows this. *Assuming you're a thinking person, you know it, too..

Complete nonsense.

On 12/16/2012 1:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:30 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
>>>>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
>>>>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>>
>>>>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not
>>>>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you
>>>>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so stupid
>>>>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>>
>>>>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
>>>>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
>>>>> it's not precisely defined.
>>
>>>> LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to
>>>> define mine...LOL!!!
>>
>>> This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you
>>> using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be
>>> taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least
>>> some idea of what it means. In the case of the term "life of positive
>>> value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of
>>> what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,
>>> unlike your previous attempts.
>>
>> You already know that he cannot define the terms, except tautologically.
>> You also know that *I* have told you what he really means by it: he
>> means existence for livestock animals. You know he doesn't care about
>> the welfare or quality of life of livestock animals at all, as I have
>> demonstrated many times:
>>
>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines
>> that we don't raise them for food. It's because
>> they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
>> don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
>> either, but because they're fairly easy to
>> raise.
>> Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
>> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
>> because I don't care about them at all, but I
>> would just ignore their suffering.
>> Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
>> cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
>> the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
>> But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
>> also....
>> Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>
>> I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
>> to make the effort.
>> Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>>
>> *Goo* - ****wit David Harrison - doesn't care about "decent lives of
>> possitive [sic] value", or animal welfare, in the least. He only cares
>> that they exist, so he can consume them. You know this. You *know*,
>> without any doubt, that his ignorant cracker bullshit about "decent
>> lives" is just a shitty attempt at a smokescreen that has been dissipated.
>
> I don't know without any doubt that he doesn't care about animal
> welfare in the least.

You do know it. I've proved it to you.


> that doesn't have any bearing on the merits of his argument,

He doesn't have an argument, and we weren't talking about his lack of
one. What we were talking about was his smokescreen - his empty
bullshit about "decent lives of possitive [sic] value", and how all that
means is existence for the animals he wants to consume.

On 12/16/2012 1:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:17 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>>
>>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>>>>> value.
>>
>>>> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>>
>>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
>>> claim it is false.
>>
>> You know that it is true. You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
>> for anything. Everyone knows it.
>
> That's absolute nonsense.

It's not.


> Actually, pretty much everyone, with some
> notable exceptions such as yourself, knows perfectly well that many
> nonhuman animals, certainly all mammals, have desires.

Not the same thing as wishes.

On 12/16/2012 1:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 16, 5:30 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 4:09 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 12/15/2012 4:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>>
>>>>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
>>>>>>> value.
>>
>>>>>> *FAIL*. No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>>
>>>>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. Additionally, I
>>>>> claim it is false.
>>
>>>> You know that it is true. You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
>>>> for anything. Everyone knows it.
>>
>>> It's not hard.
>>
>> You're right, it isn't. Non-human animals don't "wish". Every thinking
>> person knows this. Assuming you're a thinking person, you know it, too.
>
> Complete nonsense.

No, it isn't.

On Dec 16, 5:36*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 1:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 12:17 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Lord Infomouse wrote:
>
> >>> On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 12/13/2012 12:27 PM, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> Not for you it isn't - you can't give any valid assumptions.
>
> >>>>> As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of positive
> >>>>> value.
>
> >>>> *FAIL*. *No livestock animal "wishes" anything.
>
> >>> This is a baseless assertion which you cannot prove. *Additionally, I
> >>> claim it is false.
>
> >> You know that it is true. *You know that no non-human animal "wishes"
> >> for anything. *Everyone knows it.
>
> > That's absolute nonsense.
>
> It's not.
>
> > Actually, pretty much everyone, with some
> > notable exceptions such as yourself, knows perfectly well that many
> > nonhuman animals, certainly all mammals, have desires.
>
> Not the same thing as wishes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wish?s=t