Vegetarian Discussion: The Grand Illusion?

The Grand Illusion?
Posts: 40

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-04-05 13:44:25 EST
[Goo Fuckwit Harrison newsgroup spamming fixed]


On 4/5/2011 1:21 PM, dh@. wrote:
> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
> positive value.

No creature benefits from existence.

George Plimpton
2011-04-05 14:35:39 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison - Goo - pompously and ludicrously tries to sound
literary from time to time. "The Grand Illusion?" is a typically lame
attempt.

Fuckwit is an uneducated cracker. He works as a handyman at a
microbrewery, and still occasionally works as a roadie for crappy
little-known "southern rock" bands. No one is going to pay a bit of
attention to Fuckwit blabbering about "the grand illusion". The real
topic is Fuckwit's multiple self-delusions:

- that he is doing something good for animals by eating them

- that he has even begun to make a coherent case against "aras"/"vegans"

D*@.
2011-04-05 16:21:57 EST
Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
positive value. But do they really? The Goober tells us:
_________________________________________________________
"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
How could Goo know? As yet it appears that he can't, even though he claims that
he does:
_________________________________________________________
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Goo also wants us to believe that the act of being born is not a benefit to a
foetus:
_________________________________________________________
"No animal benefits from being born. Period." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit. None." - Goo

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

"NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit. Not a
single one." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Still in spite of Goo's claims to the contrary, many beings do clearly appear to
benefit from decent lives of positive value. Could the Goober be correct? Could
it not really be the benefit it appears to be when something has a life of
positive value? The quesion of course is:

What could prevent it from being what it so clearly appears to be? What could
cause such a grand illusion?

Sadly, the Goober has no idea what he thinks prevents it. He knows he believes
it has something to do with a "pre-existent state":
_________________________________________________________
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence"" - Goo

"there was no entity" - Goo

"there *was* no person" - Goo

"we don't know if that move" - Goo

""Prior to existing" - Goo

"Before being alive" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but he can't say what it is about the supposed state he wants us to believe
prevents us from benefitting from our own existence. Could something be
preventing it but we just don't know? Could Goo know that something is
preventing it but just not have the slightest clue what is doing it or how?
Could it really be the grand illusion Goo would like us to believe it is?

Rupert
2011-04-06 01:20:47 EST
On Apr 6, 6:21 am, dh@. wrote:
>     Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
> positive value. But do they really? The Goober tells us:
> _________________________________________________________
> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
> with never existing." - Goo
>
> "It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>
> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
> the existence." - Goo
>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> its quality of live" - Goo
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> How could Goo know? As yet it appears that he can't, even though he claims that
> he does:
> _________________________________________________________
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
> you ever wrote." - Goo
>
> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>
> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Goo also wants us to believe that the act of being born is not a benefit to a
> foetus:
> _________________________________________________________
> "No animal benefits from being born.  Period." - Goo
>
> "NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit.  None." - Goo
>
> "Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo
>
> "NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit.  Not a
> single one." - Goo
>
> "Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be." - Goo
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Still in spite of Goo's claims to the contrary, many beings do clearly appear to
> benefit from decent lives of positive value.

They benefit from having relatively good lives as opposed to lives
that are not so good. That is agreed to be a benefit.

What is being denied is that they benefit from having relatively good
lives as opposed to not existing at all.

You claim that they "clearly appear" to benefit from having relatively
good lives as opposed to not existing at all. That is certainly not at
all clear to me.

> Could the Goober be correct? Could
> it not really be the benefit it appears to be when something has a life of
> positive value? The quesion of course is:
>
> What could prevent it from being what it so clearly appears to be? What could
> cause such a grand illusion?
>
> Sadly, the Goober has no idea what he thinks prevents it. He knows he believes
> it has something to do with a "pre-existent state":
> _________________________________________________________
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>
> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>
> "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
> for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence"" - Goo
>
> "there was no entity" - Goo
>
> "there *was* no person" - Goo
>
> "we don't know if that move" - Goo
>
> ""Prior to existing" - Goo
>
> "Before being alive" - Goo
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> but he can't say what it is about the supposed state he wants us to believe
> prevents us from benefitting from our own existence. Could something be
> preventing it but we just don't know? Could Goo know that something is
> preventing it but just not have the slightest clue what is doing it or how?
> Could it really be the grand illusion Goo would like us to believe it is?


George Plimpton
2011-04-06 02:30:34 EST
On 4/5/2011 10:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:21 am, dh@. wrote:
>> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
>> positive value. But do they really? The Goober tells us:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>> with never existing." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>> the existence." - Goo
>>
>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>> its quality of live" - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> How could Goo know? As yet it appears that he can't, even though he claims that
>> he does:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>
>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Goo also wants us to believe that the act of being born is not a benefit to a
>> foetus:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "No animal benefits from being born. Period." - Goo
>>
>> "NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit. None." - Goo
>>
>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>> "NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit. Not a
>> single one." - Goo
>>
>> "Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be." - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Still in spite of Goo's claims to the contrary, many beings do clearly appear to
>> benefit from decent lives of positive value.
>
> They benefit from having relatively good lives as opposed to lives
> that are not so good. That is agreed to be a benefit.
>
> What is being denied is that they benefit from having relatively good
> lives as opposed to not existing at all.
>
> You claim that they "clearly appear" to benefit from having relatively
> good lives as opposed to not existing at all. That is certainly not at
> all clear to me.

In fact, it is a completely false comparison.

George Plimpton
2011-04-07 13:31:42 EST
[Fuckwit's newsgroup spamming corrected]


Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting birds - just a
criminal, period - lied:

> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:44:25 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting birds - just a criminal, period - lied:
>>
>>> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
>>> positive value.
>>
>> No creature benefits from existence.
>
> How do you want people to believe you can make that comparison

I've elaborated on the logic many times already.

George Plimpton
2011-04-07 13:33:58 EST
[Fuckwit's newsgroup spamming corrected]


Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting birds - just a
criminal, period - lied:

> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting birds - just a criminal, period - lied:
>>> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
>>> positive value.
>>
>> They benefit from having relatively good lives as opposed to lives
>> that are not so good. That is agreed to be a benefit.
>>
>> What is being denied is that they benefit from having relatively good
>> lives as opposed to not existing at all.
>>
>> You claim that they "clearly appear" to benefit from having relatively
>> good lives as opposed to not existing at all.
>
> Regardless of anything to do with not existing at all,

No, that's the issue, Fuckwit. You can't run from that, Fuckwit. You
want the animals to exist, Fuckwit - that's the whole point of your
quixotic and failed 12 year debacle.


>> That is certainly not at all clear to me.
>
> That means to me you sometimes if not always

That means, Fuckwit, that you have made no case. That's what it means.

D*@.
2011-04-07 16:08:46 EST
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:44:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:21:57 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>
>> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
>>positive value. But do they really? The Goober tells us:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>with never existing." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>How could Goo know?
>
>No creature benefits from existence.

How do you want people to believe you can make that comparison and know the
answer, Goo?

. . .
>>Could it really be the grand illusion Goo would like us to believe it is?

D*@.
2011-04-07 16:13:39 EST
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 6, 6:21 am, dh@. wrote:
>>     Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
>> positive value. But do they really? The Goober tells us:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>> with never existing." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>> the existence." - Goo
>>
>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>> its quality of live" - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> How could Goo know? As yet it appears that he can't, even though he claims that
>> he does:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>> "It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>
>> "getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Goo also wants us to believe that the act of being born is not a benefit to a
>> foetus:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> "No animal benefits from being born.  Period." - Goo
>>
>> "NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit.  None." - Goo
>>
>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo
>>
>> "NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit.  Not a
>> single one." - Goo
>>
>> "Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be." - Goo
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Still in spite of Goo's claims to the contrary, many beings do clearly appear to
>> benefit from decent lives of positive value.
>
>They benefit from having relatively good lives as opposed to lives
>that are not so good. That is agreed to be a benefit.
>
>What is being denied is that they benefit from having relatively good
>lives as opposed to not existing at all.
>
>You claim that they "clearly appear" to benefit from having relatively
>good lives

They do clearly appear to. So do you.

>as opposed to not existing at all.

Regardless of anything to do with not existing at all, many creatures do
appear to benefit from decent lives which clearly appear to be of positive value
to them. They give that appearance, and so far between you and the Goober and
his boy "Dutch", none of you have not been able to explain what you want people
to think prevents it from being the benefit it appears to be.

>That is certainly not at all clear to me.

That means to me you sometimes if not always wish you had never been born,
and feel that animals often if not always feel the same way. I don't believe
many, if any, animals suffer from wishing they had never been born, nor do I
believe many if any animals ever even learn that particular concept. So since
I'm convinced animals don't wish they had never been born, I believe they do
benefit from lives of positive value when they clearly appear to, and they do
not suffer from wishing they had never been born.

. . .
>> Could it really be the grand illusion Goo would like us to believe it is?

678.714.5764
2011-04-07 16:43:42 EST
[convicted criminal's newsgroup spamming removed]


Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting birds - just a
criminal, period - lied:

> Countless creatures very clearly appear to benefit from decent lives of
> positive value.

No animals benefit from coming into existence.


> How could George know?

I have stated the definitions and made the logical argument.



> George also wants us to believe that the act of being born is not a benefit

It isn't.


> many beings do clearly appear to
> benefit from decent lives of positive value.

Nope.



> I believe it has something to do with a "pre-existent state"

Right - and that's just plain bullshit.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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