On 10/9/2013 11:40 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/7/2013 5:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/7/2013 3:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/4/2013 2:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/4/2013 1:04 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/3/2013 6:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

We could also consider that animals
raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop
fields
are, but
instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good
and
some of
them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.

Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally
considerable.
It has no moral importance at all.

This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While what you
wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical
decision
of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It
offers no
clarity or ethical guidance at all. It's a complete waste of time.

You have no case. You are not a man.

Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing

Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning. Merely having
some
prospect of existing has no moral meaning.

ONLY because it was raised for food

Irrelevant, of course.

Less irrelevant than

No, it's just irrelevant - period.

What other reason(s)

Settled: it is entirely irrelevant that the animal was raised for food.
That has nothing to do with the ethics of killing it.

You agree.


*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration

Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence, *Gloo*. We're
comparing coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your
shitty way of putting it - with *never* existing. Coming into existence
is not a benefit - period. I've explained it, and you agree.

Try to explain how

Done.


*Continuing* to exist, once one already exists, is something else.
That's why killing the animal deserves a *LOT* of moral consideration,
*Gloo*.

*Gloo*, you keep trying to play word games with me, and you *KNOW* you
can't win them. You can't win them, *Gloo*, because I'm smarter than
you, I'm more intelligent than you, I'm more articulate than you, and I
understand language *FAR* above your cracker limitation. You are
*SOOOOOO* far below me when it comes to use of language, *Gloo*, that
you don't have any hope of beating me.

You outstupided yours

You have no hope of beating me, and you have admitted it.


I get this, and you don't.

If you think you do then

I do, and you don't. You've admitted it.

You are not a man.

Then try explaining

I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,
*Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it, *Gloo* - you had no choice.

Then why can't you

I can, and I have. You have agreed with it. You're done.

You are not a man.

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:54:24 -0700, Goo admitted:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:40:08 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:43:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:18:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:03:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:04:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:35:33 -0700, Goo disagreed with himself:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:00:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:23:56 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:22:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:55:18 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
.
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving

[ Subject: The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving
[ From:
[ Date: Sunday, November 28, 2004

The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving

By Rynn Berry

http://all-creatures.org/articles/tgveg-rb.html

[Ed.] "But it's tradition," is the cry when vegetarians
wonder why killing an animal should make Thanksgiving
special.

I've never known anyone to say that. We could consider that if humans had
never begun to eat meat none of us who are alive today would be, and possibly no
humans would exist anywhere on the planet. We could also consider that animals
raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop fields are, but
instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good and some of
them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food. We can also consider
that the people who eat meat contribute to the lives of turkeys etc, while
people who are vegans don't contribute to any lives for any livestock animals.

Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally considerable.
It has no moral importance at all.

This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While what you
wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical decision
of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It offers no
clarity or ethical guidance at all.

Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing as well as you do
about considering their lives, Goo?

Because the animal was alive

ONLY because it was raised for food Goob.

Irrelevant, of course.

Less irrelevant than the fact that they're killed, Goob. Other than because
it works against elimination, why are you so desperate that people don't
consider their lives as being as significant as their deaths Goober? Is that the
only reason for your desperate position, Goo?

No

What other reason(s) do you think you have, Goo?

up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none" - Goo

Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence

Try to explain how you think something can get to experience life without
continuing to exist Goo. Go:
...
you don't have any hope of beating me.

You outstupided yourself AGAIN unless you can explain how you think
something can get to experience life without continuing to exist Goob. You also
outstupid yourself when you are dishonest which is the majority of the time. I
beat you when those things happen and I beat you every time I challenge you to
explain some things you can't explain, you lame Googoots. I'll beat you nineteen
times again now by challenging you to try:

1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
can not experience.

2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.

3. providing any opposition at all to "AR".

4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.

5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.

6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
from their elimination objective.

7. describing any emotion(s) through language.

8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
better lives for food animals.

9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
than another.

10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.

11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
disappointment, if there are any.

12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
to the elimination of domestic animals.

13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.

14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.

15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
from a dog.

16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
with animals.

17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food
than the experiencing of their lives.

18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness
in dogs.

19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, if
"They are not aware that they can see."

admitted

You admit I beat you nineteen times just then, Goo.

I get this, and you don't.

If you think you do then try explaining how you think you disagree with
yourself about it Goo. Go:

I do

Then try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself about it Goo.
GO:

I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,
*Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it

Then why can't you force it now Goober? Even though you can't force it, try
to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:

I

Try to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:

"I am not a man." - Goo

On 10/10/2013 12:02 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/9/2013 11:54 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/9/2013 11:40 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/7/2013 5:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/7/2013 3:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/4/2013 2:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/4/2013 1:04 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/3/2013 6:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

We could also consider that animals
raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop
fields
are, but
instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good
and
some of
them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.

Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally
considerable.
It has no moral importance at all.

This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While
what you
wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical
decision
of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It
offers no
clarity or ethical guidance at all. It's a complete waste of
time.

You have no case. You are not a man.

Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing

Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning. Merely having
some
prospect of existing has no moral meaning.

ONLY because it was raised for food

Irrelevant, of course.

Less irrelevant than

No, it's just irrelevant - period.

What other reason(s)

Settled: it is entirely irrelevant that the animal was raised for food.
That has nothing to do with the ethics of killing it.

You agree.


*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration

Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence, *Gloo*. We're
comparing coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your
shitty way of putting it - with *never* existing. Coming into existence
is not a benefit - period. I've explained it, and you agree.

Try to explain how

Done.


*Continuing* to exist, once one already exists, is something else.
That's why killing the animal deserves a *LOT* of moral consideration,
*Gloo*.

*Gloo*, you keep trying to play word games with me, and you *KNOW* you
can't win them. You can't win them, *Gloo*, because I'm smarter than
you, I'm more intelligent than you, I'm more articulate than you, and I
understand language *FAR* above your cracker limitation. You are
*SOOOOOO* far below me when it comes to use of language, *Gloo*, that
you don't have any hope of beating me.

You outstupided yours

You have no hope of beating me, and you have admitted it.

You admit

*YOU* are the one admitting things around here, *Gloo*. You admit I
beat you - I beat you like a drum.


I get this, and you don't.

If you think you do then

I do, and you don't. You've admitted it.

You are not a man.

Then try explaining

I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,
*Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it, *Gloo* - you had no choice.

Then why can't you

I can, and I have. You have agreed with it. You're done.

You are not a man.

Try to present

Done.

You are not a man. You admit it.

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:42:34 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:02:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:54:24 -0700, Goo admitted:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:40:08 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:43:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:18:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:03:21 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:04:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:35:33 -0700, Goo disagreed with himself:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:00:16 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:23:56 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:22:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:55:18 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
.
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving

[ Subject: The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving
[ From:
[ Date: Sunday, November 28, 2004

The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving

By Rynn Berry

http://all-creatures.org/articles/tgveg-rb.html

[Ed.] "But it's tradition," is the cry when vegetarians
wonder why killing an animal should make Thanksgiving
special.

I've never known anyone to say that. We could consider that if humans had
never begun to eat meat none of us who are alive today would be, and possibly no
humans would exist anywhere on the planet. We could also consider that animals
raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop fields are, but
instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good and some of
them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food. We can also consider
that the people who eat meat contribute to the lives of turkeys etc, while
people who are vegans don't contribute to any lives for any livestock animals.

Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally considerable.
It has no moral importance at all.

This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While what you
wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical decision
of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It offers no
clarity or ethical guidance at all.

Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing as well as you do
about considering their lives, Goo?

Because the animal was alive

ONLY because it was raised for food Goob.

Irrelevant, of course.

Less irrelevant than the fact that they're killed, Goob. Other than because
it works against elimination, why are you so desperate that people don't
consider their lives as being as significant as their deaths Goober? Is that the
only reason for your desperate position, Goo?

No

What other reason(s) do you think you have, Goo?

up to the point it was killed, ****wit.
*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none" - Goo

Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence

Try to explain how you think something can get to experience life without
continuing to exist Goo. Go:
...
you don't have any hope of beating me.

You outstupided yourself AGAIN unless you can explain how you think
something can get to experience life without continuing to exist Goob. You also
outstupid yourself when you are dishonest which is the majority of the time. I
beat you when those things happen and I beat you every time I challenge you to
explain some things you can't explain, you lame Googoots. I'll beat you nineteen
times again now by challenging you to try:

1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
can not experience.

2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.

3. providing any opposition at all to "AR".

4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.

5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.

6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
from their elimination objective.

7. describing any emotion(s) through language.

8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
better lives for food animals.

9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
than another.

10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.

11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
disappointment, if there are any.

12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
to the elimination of domestic animals.

13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.

14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.

15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
from a dog.

16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
with animals.

17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food
than the experiencing of their lives.

18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness
in dogs.

19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, if
"They are not aware that they can see."

admitted

You admit I beat you nineteen times just then, Goo.

I get this, and you don't.

If you think you do then try explaining how you think you disagree with
yourself about it Goo. Go:

I do

Then try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself about it Goo.
GO:

I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,
*Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it

Then why can't you force it now Goober? Even though you can't force it, try
to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:

I

Try to present something to at least consider, Goo. Go:

Done.

That's such a blatant lie you can't even try to pretend it's true, Goo.

"I am not a man." - Goo

On 10/13/2013 2:42 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/10/2013 12:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 10/10/2013 12:02 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/9/2013 11:54 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/9/2013 11:40 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/7/2013 5:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/7/2013 3:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:

On 10/4/2013 2:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/4/2013 1:04 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

On 10/3/2013 6:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
1999
and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost
again*:

We could also consider that animals
raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop
fields
are, but
instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them
good
and
some of
them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.

Meaningless. Their "experiencing" of life is not morally
considerable.
It has no moral importance at all.

This is what I meant by you having no case, ****wit. While
what you
wrote is true, it is trivial. It has no bearing on the ethical
decision
of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food. It
offers no
clarity or ethical guidance at all. It's a complete waste of
time.

You have no case. You are not a man.

Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing

Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed,
****wit.
*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning. Merely
having
some
prospect of existing has no moral meaning.

ONLY because it was raised for food

Irrelevant, of course.

Less irrelevant than

No, it's just irrelevant - period.

What other reason(s)

Settled: it is entirely irrelevant that the animal was raised for food.
That has nothing to do with the ethics of killing it.

You agree.


*Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration

Right. "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into
existence." It does *NOT* mean continued existence, *Gloo*. We're
comparing coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in
your
shitty way of putting it - with *never* existing. Coming into
existence
is not a benefit - period. I've explained it, and you agree.

Try to explain how

Done.


*Continuing* to exist, once one already exists, is something else.
That's why killing the animal deserves a *LOT* of moral consideration,
*Gloo*.

*Gloo*, you keep trying to play word games with me, and you *KNOW* you
can't win them. You can't win them, *Gloo*, because I'm smarter than
you, I'm more intelligent than you, I'm more articulate than you,
and I
understand language *FAR* above your cracker limitation. You are
*SOOOOOO* far below me when it comes to use of language, *Gloo*, that
you don't have any hope of beating me.

You outstupided yours

You have no hope of beating me, and you have admitted it.

You admit

*YOU* are the one admitting things around here, *Gloo*. You admit I
beat you - I beat you like a drum.


I get this, and you don't.

If you think you do then

I do, and you don't. You've admitted it.

You are not a man.

Then try explaining

I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to
experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed*
with it,
*Gloo*. You were *forced* to agree with it, *Gloo* - you had no
choice.

Then why can't you

I can, and I have. You have agreed with it. You're done.

You are not a man.

Try to present

Done.

You are not a man. You admit it.

That's such a blatant lie

No, it's not a lie. You are not a man, and you *have* admitted it. You
are done - you were done before you started - and you've admitted that, too.

You're done. You are not a man.