Vegetarian Discussion: Another Disagreement (aka Self-outstupification)

Another Disagreement (aka Self-outstupification)
Posts: 16

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)

Mr.Smartypants
2010-06-04 12:53:42 EST
Halfwit Goober C. Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
"nutritionally unnecessary choice".

Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
(which isn't true)


Why is he *always* in arguments with himselves?

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-04 13:02:16 EST
On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
context:

> Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".

It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.

AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
it as an explanation for much of anything.


>
> Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".

Meat provides full nutrition. No one ever said "animals" provide full
nutrition.


> (which isn't true)

It is true.


There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.

Mr.Smartypants
2010-06-04 16:53:45 EST
On Jun 4, 11:02 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
> context:
>
> > Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
> > "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>
> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>
>     If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>     that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>     to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>     magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>     results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>     or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>     existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>     moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>     prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
> AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
> it as an explanation for much of anything.
>
>
>
> > Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
>
> Meat provides full nutrition.  No one ever said "animals" provide full
> nutrition.


LOL!!

are you now trying to get people to believe that MEAT doesn't come
from animals? ..........or are you trying to pretend that once an
animal is killed it's FLESH (meat) takes on some magical nutritional
additions that weren't there while the animal was alive?

sometimes Goo, I swear you're trying to put Jay Leno out of a job.







>
> > (which isn't true)
>
> It is true.
>
> There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
> anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.


Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-04 17:00:12 EST
On 6/4/2010 1:53 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:02 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
>> context:
>>
>>> Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
>>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>>
>> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>>
>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>
>> AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
>> it as an explanation for much of anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
>>
>> Meat provides full nutrition. No one ever said "animals" provide full
>> nutrition.
>
>
> LOL!!
>
> are you now trying to get people to believe that MEAT doesn't come
> from animals?

No.


>>
>>> (which isn't true)
>>
>> It is true.
>>
>> There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
>> anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.

You whiffed off, again. You claimed there was "disagreement" between
two of my statements, and there isn't.

Mr.Smartypants
2010-06-04 22:18:13 EST
On Jun 4, 3:00 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 1:53 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 11:02 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
> >> context:
>
> >>> Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
> >>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>
> >> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>
> >>      If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> >>      that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> >>      to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> >>      magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
> >>      results from not raising the animal in the first place,
> >>      or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> >>      existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
> >>      moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> >>      prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
> >> AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
> >> it as an explanation for much of anything.
>
> >>> Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
>
> >> Meat provides full nutrition.  No one ever said "animals" provide full
> >> nutrition.
>
> > LOL!!
>
> > are you now trying to get people to believe that MEAT doesn't come
> > from animals?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >>> (which isn't true)
>
> >> It is true.
>
> >> There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
> >> anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.
>
> You whiffed off, again.  You claimed there was "disagreement" between
> two of my statements, and there isn't.-


Goo said: "Meat provides full nutrition. No one ever said "animals"
provide full nutrition."


Can you explain those two statements?




Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-05 02:30:56 EST
On 6/4/2010 7:18 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:00 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/4/2010 1:53 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 11:02 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
>>>> context:
>>
>>>>> Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
>>>>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>>
>>>> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>>
>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>
>>>> AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
>>>> it as an explanation for much of anything.
>>
>>>>> Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
>>
>>>> Meat provides full nutrition. No one ever said "animals" provide full
>>>> nutrition.
>>
>>> LOL!!
>>
>>> are you now trying to get people to believe that MEAT doesn't come
>>> from animals?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> (which isn't true)
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>>> There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
>>>> anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.
>>
>> You whiffed off, again. You claimed there was "disagreement" between
>> two of my statements, and there isn't.-
>
>
> "Meat provides full nutrition.

Correct.


> No one ever said "animals"
> provide full nutrition."

Also correct.


> Can you explain those two statements?

There's no disagreement.

Mr.Smartypants
2010-06-05 04:19:30 EST
On Jun 5, 12:30 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 7:18 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 3:00 pm, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/4/2010 1:53 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 4, 11:02 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain blabbered about a lot of shit out of
> >>>> context:
>
> >>>>> Dobbs told dh that killing animals is a
> >>>>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>
> >>>> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>
> >>>>       If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> >>>>       that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> >>>>       to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> >>>>       magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
> >>>>       results from not raising the animal in the first place,
> >>>>       or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> >>>>       existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
> >>>>       moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> >>>>       prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
> >>>> AS is well known, I don't really believe in "necessity" or the lack of
> >>>> it as an explanation for much of anything.
>
> >>>>> Yet at a later date he posts that animals provide "full nutrition".
>
> >>>> Meat provides full nutrition.  No one ever said "animals" provide full
> >>>> nutrition.
>
> >>> LOL!!
>
> >>> are you now trying to get people to believe that MEAT doesn't come
> >>> from animals?
>
> >> No.
>
> >>>>> (which isn't true)
>
> >>>> It is true.
>
> >>>> There is, of course, no conflict or disagreement between the two, as
> >>>> anyone with an understanding of basic logic can easily see.
>
> >> You whiffed off, again.  You claimed there was "disagreement" between
> >> two of my statements, and there isn't.-
>
> > "Meat provides full nutrition.
>
> Correct.
>
> > No one ever said "animals"
> > provide full nutrition."
>
> Also correct.
>
> > Can you explain those two statements?
>
> There's no disagreement.-


Can you *explain* them?



D*@.
2010-06-08 13:47:02 EST
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:02:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mr. Smartypants pointed out:
>
>> Goo told dh that killing animals is a
>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>
>It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>
> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> existing at all,

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals."
- Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

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

> then you MUST believe that it makes
> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
>AS is well known

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is
the ethically superior choice." - Goo

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-08 15:22:03 EST
On 6/8/2010 10:47 AM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward -
attempted to bullshit:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:02:16 -0700, Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mr. Smartypants attempted to bullshit:
>>
>>> Fred told dh that killing animals is a
>>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>>
>> It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>>
>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>> existing at all,
>
>[snip off-topic Goo bullshit]

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, Goo.

D*@.
2010-06-09 10:49:42 EST
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 Goo claimed:

>On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:47:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:02:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mr. Smartypants pointed out:
>>>
>>>> Goo told dh that killing animals is a
>>>> "nutritionally unnecessary choice".
>>>
>>>It is technically true, but here's what was actually written:
>>>
>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>> magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>> existing at all,
>>
>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>with never existing." - Goo
>>
>>"livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>to them" - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>
>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals."
>> - Goo
>>
>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>
>>> then you MUST believe that it makes
>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>
>>>AS is well known
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is
>>the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals" - Goo

We know that's how you want people to feel, as you insist
they:

"MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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