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:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-09 13:21:53 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bullshit:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bullshit:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:02:16 -0700, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Mrs.Cumstain bullshitted:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>>
>
> We know that's how you want people to feel

No, Goo. I am describing how "animal rights activists" feel. That's
not how I feel, nor do I encourage others to feel that way.

You knew you were lying when you said that, Goo.

D*@.
2010-06-10 17:19:25 EST
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 Goo tried to wuss away from himself:

>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:49:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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
>
>That's not how I feel,

Then why did you try to encourage me to feel that way if you
think you don't agree with yourself about it, Goob?

>nor do I encourage others to feel that way.

LOL! That's a blatant lie Goober. It's so blatant in fact
Goo, that what I presented ARE examples of you trying to
encourage people to feel that way. You've outstupided yourself
AGAIN Goo with the absurd blatancy of your own dishonesty.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-11 02:04:37 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bullshit:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bullshit:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bullshit:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:02:16 -0700, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/4/2010 9:53 AM, Runny Hamilton, aka Mrs.Cumstain, douched herself in the public square:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> "MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>> No, Goo. I am describing how "animal rights activists" feel. That's not how I feel, nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>
> Then why did you

You altered my statement, above. I put it back the way it was. Comment
on that, or shut the fuck up.


>> nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>
> LOL! That's a blatant lie

It isn't, Goo. I have strenuously opposed "ar" for 11 years. I also
have strenuously opposed your *BULLSHIT* for 11 years, Fuckwit, because
your *BULLSHIT* is an invalid, unsound, absurd and *failed* attempt to
counter "ar".

My opposition to "ar" is sound, Goo. Yours is utter bullshit. Your
bullshit does not, in any way, make a dent in "ar". My critique of "ar"
does.

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-11 12:42:51 EST
On 6/10/2010 2:19 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 Goo tried to wuss away from himself:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:49:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> We know that's how you want people to feel,
>>
>> No, Goo. I am describing how "animal rights activists" feel. That's not how I feel, nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>
> Then why did you try to encourage me to feel that way

I didn't, Goo. You're lying to suggest or claim that I did.



>> nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>
> That's a blatant lie

It's not a lie, Goo. I oppose "animal rights"; I always have. I
*also*, Goo, oppose your absurd, worthless pretense of opposition to
"ar". Your opposition is based on nonsense. I oppose the embrace of
nonsense.

Your criticism of "ar" is worthless, because it is based on illogic and
false belief, and dishonesty.

D*@.
2010-06-14 14:00:32 EST
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 Goo lied:

>On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:25 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 Goo tried to wuss away from himself:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:49:42 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>That's not how I feel,
>>
>> Then why did you try to encourage me to feel that way if you
>>think you don't agree with yourself about it, Goob?
>>
>>>nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>>
>> LOL! That's a blatant lie Goober. It's so blatant in fact
>>Goo, that what I presented ARE examples of you trying to
>>encourage people to feel that way. You've outstupided yourself
>>AGAIN Goo with the absurd blatancy of your own dishonesty.
>
>My opposition to "ar" is sound

I've challenged you to try explaining what you think it is a
number of times Goob, but so far you have never been able to
explain. However Goo, I'm still interested in what you think it
is, if you think you have any idea. Try presenting some of your
"opposition" Goober if you think you can:

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-14 14:24:33 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the morally bankrupt coward - attempted to
bullshit:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the morally bankrupt coward - attempted to bullshit:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the morally bankrupt coward - attempted to bullshit:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, the morally bankrupt 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, Mrs.Cumstain bullshitted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fred told Fuckwit 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,

>>>>
>>>> That's not how I feel,
>>>
>>> Then why did you try to encourage me to feel that way

I didn't, Goo.


>>>> nor do I encourage others to feel that way.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie Fred.

It isn't, Goo. I have strenuously opposed "ar" for 11 years. I also
have strenuously opposed your *BULLSHIT* for 11 years, Fuckwit, because
your *BULLSHIT* is an invalid, unsound, absurd and *failed* attempt to
counter "ar".


>>
>> My opposition to "ar" is sound, Goo. Yours is utter bullshit. Your bullshit does not, in any way, make a dent in "ar". My critique of "ar" does.
>
> I've challenged you

No. You, Goo, have never presented any "challenge". You are incapable
of it.


> to try explaining what it is a
> number of times

I have explained it, Goo, thoroughly and articulately.

You, on the other hand, cannot explain your bullshit "consideration" at
all. It's just bullshit - nothing but hot air.

You're still running fearfully - scared to death - from the key
questions, Goo:

How does existence - "life", "getting to experience life", or
whatever goofy cracker term Goo is using these days - improve an
entity's welfare?

What *is* this supposed "consideration"?

What is supposed to be the practical outcome of "considering" the
potential lives of livestock animals that do not yet exist?

What moral effect *on animals* would there be if humans stopped
breeding livestock animals into existence?

*Why* would it be "ethically equivalent or superior" to cause
livestock animals to exist, rather than ceasing to breed them?


Prediction: you'll continue to cry and run away. It's what you've been
doing for 11 years.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs
Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)


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