Vegetarian Discussion: GooFuckwit David Harrison Wallows In Stupidity

GooFuckwit David Harrison Wallows In Stupidity
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-23 10:40:54 EST
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to farm animals, Goo.
Farm animals do not "get something" out of any "bargain" by being bred
into existence, Goo. They didn't enter into any "bargain", Goo. You
are not doing something "nice" for "them" by breeding them into
existence, Goo, no matter what conditions they live in; and no one is
doing "them" any harm by wanting to put a stop to animal agriculture.
If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
there would be no moral loss to any animals. Goo. Goo, you stupid
pig-fucking criminal cracker.

D*@.
2008-09-24 09:37:33 EST
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober proclaimed:

>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>there would be no moral loss to any animals.

But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
of positive value. If you think you can explain what will prevent them
from benefitting, try explaining it now Goo. GO:

(Correct prediction: This particular challenge will defeat the Goober
completely as it's done every time he has been presented with it,
and will do ever time he is presented with it.)

Dutch
2008-09-24 14:17:51 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:qjgkd4tp92q9vn512v6togtr08l0b7ihur@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober
> proclaimed:
>
>>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>
> But

No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing". Your whole lifelong
campaign is based "stupidness".


Rudy Canoza
2008-09-24 14:45:12 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than
I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rudy G. Canoza kicked Fuckwit's ass:
>
>> If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>> there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>
> But since they will be Rudy,

If they weren't, Goo, there would be no moral loss to any animals. No
animals would suffer "loss", "unfairness", "deprivation", "denial".

Your *BOGUS* "opposition" to animal rights is based on nonsense.

D*@.
2008-09-29 06:40:55 EST
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:37:33 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober proclaimed:
>>
>>>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>
>> But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
>>of positive value.
>
>No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".

That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

>Your whole lifelong campaign is based "stupidness".

It's based on consideration for the billions of lives of positive
value animals experience because humans raise them for food.
Giving consideration to the animals is only stupid to people who
are too stupid to be able to do it. The fact that humans eat
animal products disturbs you so badly that all you can consider
is your own horror, and so you don't have room to consider the
animals too.

>>If you think you can explain what will prevent them
>>from benefitting, try explaining it now Goo. GO:
>>
>>(Correct prediction: This particular challenge will defeat the Goober
>>completely as it's done every time he has been presented with it,
>>and will do ever time he is presented with it.)


Rudy Canoza
2008-09-29 11:33:25 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than
I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> OGoo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied: :
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>> there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>> But since they will be Rudy,
>> No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".
>
> That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.

You mean benefit from existing, Goo, and they do not.

You can't do it, Goo. For close to TEN fucking years, Goo, you've been
trying to fake it - trying to pretend you care about the quality of life
for farm animals. You do not. I demonstrated it conclusively.

Dutch
2008-09-29 17:01:25 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:37:33 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober
>>>proclaimed:
>>>
>>>>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>>there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>>
>>> But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
>>>of positive value.
>>
>>No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".
>
> That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.

I'll take that as finally, agreement with my point, animals cannot be
"prevented from existing". That means that vegetarians cannot be attacked
on that basis. All such arguments you have made in the past have been
invalid.

To respond to the notion of "benefitting from lives of positive value", the
only way that can make sense in this context is by assuming that it means
that a sentient being, living a decent life representes an absolute good.
Therefore by raising sentient beings and treating them well we create an
absolute good. That is a shaky notion from a philosopical point of view in
my opinion, the ramifications are horrific, but let's accept it for the sake
of argument. The problem with it is that the real world is not an absolute
place, everything is relative. In other words, if you take a decent life to
create a decent life your absolute good cancels itself out. In the real
world of limited resources, creating and supporting the sentient beings we
call livestock means that those resources, land, water, food, are taken away
from wildlife at the very least a one-to-one basis, thereby cancelling out
the net good you created. Furthermore, given the average size of wild
animals, the ratio is undoubtedly much worse than 1-1. Assigning an absolute
value to the lives of animals actually works contrary to the raising of
livestock.


>>Your whole lifelong campaign is based "stupidness".
>
> It's based on consideration for the billions of lives of positive
> value animals experience because humans raise them for food.
> Giving consideration to the animals is only stupid to people who
> are too stupid to be able to do it. The fact that humans eat
> animal products disturbs you so badly that all you can consider
> is your own horror, and so you don't have room to consider the
> animals too.

The failure of the Logic of the Larder is that it considers animals
selectively, for what any objective observer can clearly see is self-serving
motives.


D*@.
2008-09-30 09:28:55 EST
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:01:25 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:37:33 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober
>>>>proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>>>there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>>>
>>>> But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
>>>>of positive value.
>>>
>>>No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".
>>
>> That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
>> from lives of positive value.
>
>I'll take that as finally, agreement with my point, animals cannot be
>"prevented from existing".

I've agreed with that all along, and even admitted a couple
mistakes I've made in that regard which is more than anyone
else around here has done.

>That means that vegetarians cannot be attacked
>on that basis. All such arguments you have made in the past have been
>invalid.

Veg*ns do nothing to help livestock with their lifestyle. Only
conscientious consumers of animal products can contribute to
lives of positive value for livestock with their lifestyle.

>To respond to the notion of "benefitting from lives of positive value", the
>only way that can make sense in this context is by assuming that it means
>that a sentient being, living a decent life representes an absolute good.

The idea of absoluet is absurd in this case.

>Therefore by raising sentient beings and treating them well we create an
>absolute good. That is a shaky notion from a philosopical point of view in
>my opinion, the ramifications are horrific, but let's accept it for the sake
>of argument. The problem with it is that the real world is not an absolute
>place,

Which is why your insistance about absolute is absurd.

>everything is relative. In other words, if you take a decent life to
>create a decent life your absolute good cancels itself out. In the real
>world of limited resources, creating and supporting the sentient beings we
>call livestock means that those resources, land, water, food, are taken away
>from wildlife at the very least a one-to-one basis,

The idea of it being on a one to one basis is absurd.

>thereby cancelling out
>the net good you created. Furthermore, given the average size of wild
>animals, the ratio is undoubtedly much worse than 1-1. Assigning an absolute
>value to the lives of animals actually works contrary to the raising of
>livestock.

Not if you can appreciate lives of positive value for livestock.
There's also the fact that when land used to raise livestock starts
being used for something else, it's unlikely that it will support more
wildlife than when it was also supporting livestock.

>>>Your whole lifelong campaign is based "stupidness".
>>
>> It's based on consideration for the billions of lives of positive
>> value animals experience because humans raise them for food.
>> Giving consideration to the animals is only stupid to people who
>> are too stupid to be able to do it. The fact that humans eat
>> animal products disturbs you so badly that all you can consider
>> is your own horror, and so you don't have room to consider the
>> animals too.
>
>The failure of the Logic of the Larder is that it considers animals
>selectively,

So do you. You want to consider wildlife and give no consideration
to the lives of livestock because that makes you feel "dirty". Why it
makes you feel dirty to consider the lives of livestock but not of
wildlife is a mystery.

>for what any objective observer can clearly see is self-serving
>motives.

The self-interested motives of eliminationists are even more clear.
A person can want to consume animal products AND contribute to
decent lives for the animals as well, but a person can't want to
eliminate animals for their own selfish reason and want them to have
decent lives as well.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-30 14:39:51 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:01:25 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>>>> there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>>>> But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
>>>>> of positive value.
>>>> No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".
>>> That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
>>> from lives of positive value.
>> I'll take that as finally, agreement with my point, animals cannot be
>> "prevented from existing".
>
> I've agreed with that all along,

No, you haven't:

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

Right there, GooFuckwit: "prevent". You believe that non-existent
animals can be "prevented" from existing, and that if it happens,
non-existent animals will suffer a "loss".

Not a "mistake", GooFuckwit, as far as expressing your thoughts: that
is exactly what you believe.

Agreed: the only sense in which it was a "mistake" is that it made it
baldly obvious what a stupid fucktard you are.


>> That means that vegetarians cannot be attacked
>> on that basis. All such arguments you have made in the past have been
>> invalid.
>
> Veg*ns do nothing to help livestock with their lifestyle.

Irrelevant. They don't claim that they do, Goo.


>> To respond to the notion of "benefitting from lives of positive value", the
>> only way that can make sense in this context is by assuming that it means
>> that a sentient being, living a decent life representes an absolute good.
>
> The idea of absoluet is absurd in this case.

It's what you believe, Goo.


>
>> Therefore by raising sentient beings and treating them well we create an
>> absolute good. That is a shaky notion from a philosopical point of view in
>> my opinion, the ramifications are horrific, but let's accept it for the sake
>> of argument. The problem with it is that the real world is not an absolute
>> place,
>
> Which is why your insistance about absolute is absurd.

It's what you believe, Goo. You believe it *absolutely* is good for
livestock to "get to experience life", irrespective of the quality of
their lives, Goo. *PROVED*!


>
>> everything is relative. In other words, if you take a decent life to
>> create a decent life your absolute good cancels itself out. In the real
>> world of limited resources, creating and supporting the sentient beings we
>> call livestock means that those resources, land, water, food, are taken away
>>from wildlife at the very least a one-to-one basis,
>
> The idea of it being on a one to one basis is absurd.

Everything you write is absurd, Goo. Goo, you stupid pig-fucker.


>
>> thereby cancelling out
>> the net good you created. Furthermore, given the average size of wild
>> animals, the ratio is undoubtedly much worse than 1-1. Assigning an absolute
>> value to the lives of animals actually works contrary to the raising of
>> livestock.
>
> Not if you can appreciate lives of positive value for livestock.

No, Goo. That's not what you do or want. You want livestock to
*exist*, Goo - so you can consume them. Period. Nothing more.


>>>> Your whole lifelong campaign is based "stupidness".
>>> It's based on consideration for the billions of lives of positive
>>> value animals experience because humans raise them for food.
>>> Giving consideration to the animals is only stupid to people who
>>> are too stupid to be able to do it. The fact that humans eat
>>> animal products disturbs you so badly that all you can consider
>>> is your own horror, and so you don't have room to consider the
>>> animals too.
>> The failure of the Logic of the Larder is that it considers animals
>> selectively,
>
> So do you.

No.


>> for what any objective observer can clearly see is self-serving
>> motives.
>
> The self-interested motives of eliminationists are even more clear.

No, nothing is as clear as your naked dishonesty and greedy self-interest.

Dutch
2008-09-30 15:30:45 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:kk94e4tcfmnslg25ldb5ui76cn98f8fct3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:01:25 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:37:33 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, always in support of the misnomer the Goober
>>>>>proclaimed:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If no new farm animals were bred into existence starting today, Goo,
>>>>>>there would be no moral loss to any animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since they will be Goob, many of them will benefit from lives
>>>>>of positive value.
>>>>
>>>>No buts, animals cannot be "prevented from existing".
>>>
>>> That doesn't prevent some of those who do from benefitting
>>> from lives of positive value.
>>
>>I'll take that as finally, agreement with my point, animals cannot be
>>"prevented from existing".
>
> I've agreed with that all along, and even admitted a couple
> mistakes I've made in that regard which is more than anyone
> else around here has done.

Fair enough, but the idea goes to the root of the Logic of the Larder.

>>That means that vegetarians cannot be attacked
>>on that basis. All such arguments you have made in the past have been
>>invalid.
>
> Veg*ns do nothing to help livestock with their lifestyle. Only
> conscientious consumers of animal products can contribute to
> lives of positive value for livestock with their lifestyle.

So what? With that statement you are recanting what you just admitted.

>
>>To respond to the notion of "benefitting from lives of positive value",
>>the
>>only way that can make sense in this context is by assuming that it means
>>that a sentient being, living a decent life representes an absolute good.
>
> The idea of absoluet is absurd in this case.

It has to begin as one to make any sense.

>
>>Therefore by raising sentient beings and treating them well we create an
>>absolute good. That is a shaky notion from a philosopical point of view in
>>my opinion, the ramifications are horrific, but let's accept it for the
>>sake
>>of argument. The problem with it is that the real world is not an absolute
>>place,
>
> Which is why your insistance about absolute is absurd.
>
>>everything is relative. In other words, if you take a decent life to
>>create a decent life your absolute good cancels itself out. In the real
>>world of limited resources, creating and supporting the sentient beings we
>>call livestock means that those resources, land, water, food, are taken
>>away
>>from wildlife at the very least a one-to-one basis,
>
> The idea of it being on a one to one basis is absurd.

True, wildlife are generally much smaller than livestock. 100-1 is more like
it.

>
>>thereby cancelling out
>>the net good you created. Furthermore, given the average size of wild
>>animals, the ratio is undoubtedly much worse than 1-1. Assigning an
>>absolute
>>value to the lives of animals actually works contrary to the raising of
>>livestock.
>
> Not if you can appreciate lives of positive value for livestock.
> There's also the fact that when land used to raise livestock starts
> being used for something else, it's unlikely that it will support more
> wildlife than when it was also supporting livestock.

Nonsense.

>
>>>>Your whole lifelong campaign is based "stupidness".
>>>
>>> It's based on consideration for the billions of lives of positive
>>> value animals experience because humans raise them for food.
>>> Giving consideration to the animals is only stupid to people who
>>> are too stupid to be able to do it. The fact that humans eat
>>> animal products disturbs you so badly that all you can consider
>>> is your own horror, and so you don't have room to consider the
>>> animals too.
>>
>>The failure of the Logic of the Larder is that it considers animals
>>selectively,
>
> So do you. You want to consider wildlife and give no consideration
> to the lives of livestock because that makes you feel "dirty". Why it
> makes you feel dirty to consider the lives of livestock but not of
> wildlife is a mystery.

What makes me feel dirty is the idea of taking credit for the life
experience of an animal I am eating.

>
>>for what any objective observer can clearly see is self-serving
>>motives.
>
> The self-interested motives of eliminationists are even more clear.

They are equally clear.

> A person can want to consume animal products AND contribute to
> decent lives for the animals as well, but a person can't want to
> eliminate animals for their own selfish reason and want them to have
> decent lives as well.

Whether that is confusion or equivocation I'm not sure, but it's nonsense.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron