Vegetarian Discussion: Why Does Fuckwit David Harrison Equivocate...

Why Does Fuckwit David Harrison Equivocate...
Posts: 58

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-05-12 18:18:47 EST
...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
place, and their welfare if they do exist?

Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
notice.

Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
in the first place. It has no ethical meaning.

Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist. What is
important "to the animals" is their welfare *IF* they exist, *not* their
existence itself.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-05-13 08:34:46 EST
On May 12, 4:18 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
> in the first place.  It has no ethical meaning.
>


Why are *you* who won't tell us where the choice cuts are going from
the EXTRA livestock you claim are being raised blabbering about
placing "zero value" on something someone else says?


George Plimpton
2011-05-13 10:28:00 EST
On 5/13/2011 5:34 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On May 12, 4:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>> in the first place. It has no ethical meaning.
>>
>
> [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]

As usual.



Rupert
2011-05-24 23:07:47 EST
On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>
> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
> notice.
>
> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
> in the first place.  It has no ethical meaning.
>
> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.  

What do you think about modern farming methods, then?

> What is
> important "to the animals" is their welfare *IF* they exist, *not* their
> existence itself.


George Plimpton
2011-05-24 23:30:09 EST
On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
>> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>>
>> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
>> notice.
>>
>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>> in the first place. It has no ethical meaning.
>>
>> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>
> What do you think about modern farming methods, then?

Which ones?

Rupert
2011-05-24 23:35:02 EST
On May 24, 8:30 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
> >> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>
> >> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
> >> notice.
>
> >> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
> >> in the first place.  It has no ethical meaning.
>
> >> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>
> > What do you think about modern farming methods, then?
>
> Which ones?

Well, are you familiar with the size of the stalls used to confine
pregnant sows?

I was giving a presentation about piggeries at a practical ethics
tutorial in the University of Sydney recently; I found this a useful
source of information.

http://www.voiceless.org.au/images/stories/reports/Voiceless_Report,_From_Paddocks_To_Prisons_Dec_05.pdf

George Plimpton
2011-05-25 00:03:36 EST
On 5/24/2011 8:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 24, 8:30 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
>>>> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>>
>>>> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
>>>> notice.
>>
>>>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>>>> in the first place. It has no ethical meaning.
>>
>>>> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>>
>>> What do you think about modern farming methods, then?
>>
>> Which ones?
>
> Well, are you familiar with the size of the stalls used to confine
> pregnant sows?

*All* pregnant sows? Everywhere? Are you sure?


> I was giving a presentation about piggeries

You are not competent for that. You're a fraud - but that was
established a long time ago.

Rupert
2011-05-25 01:47:51 EST
On May 25, 2:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 8:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 8:30 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
> >>>> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>
> >>>> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
> >>>> notice.
>
> >>>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
> >>>> in the first place.  It has no ethical meaning.
>
> >>>> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>
> >>> What do you think about modern farming methods, then?
>
> >> Which ones?
>
> > Well, are you familiar with the size of the stalls used to confine
> > pregnant sows?
>
> *All* pregnant sows?  Everywhere?  Are you sure?
>

Well, the report gives specifics. The vast majority of pregnant sows
who are kept in piggeries in Australia, certainly. This is something
which Animal Liberation has been campaigning about for a long time.

> > I was giving a presentation about piggeries
>
> You are not competent for that.  You're a fraud - but that was
> established a long time ago.

No such thing was established.

I have not received any formal education in mathematical logic and set
theory but I am extremely knowledgeable about those fields based on
self-teaching. My contributions in sci.logic are highly thought of and
I have done original research which has been praised by a Harvard
professor. I have not received any formal education in these subjects,
but I am certainly someone who is very knowledgeable about the fields
and would be quite competent to give paid lectures in them.
Furthermore I will be presenting my research at the Australian
Mathematical Society meeting and it will be published shortly.

Similarly, I have not received any formal education in ethics apart
from one course that I took as an undergraduate but I have read very
extensively and have formed a broad and deep understanding of the
field. You hold my understanding of the field in low esteem but others
whose opinion I actually respect and who are themselves working
towards postgraduate qualifications in ethics or have already
completed them have respect for my understanding of the field and have
given me positive feedback on presentations I have given. I have not
attempted original research in the field but there is no good reason
why I would not be able to do so. I am a good choice of person to give
paid lectures about issues in ethics. I have been paid to do so and
have been repeatedly invited back and repeatedly receive reports of
extremely positive feedback. I am someone who has a very good
understanding of moral philosophy and philosophy generally. Your
opinion about the matter is not valuable.

I certainly have never at any stage misrepresented my qualifications
in any way, nor were they in any way misrepresented to the people to
whom I was speaking. I simply gave a presentation in which I
encouraged people to consider various arguments, which I presented to
the best of my ability because I was invited to do so. There is
absolutely no justification for calling me a fraud. But it is quite
amusing when you say stupid things for my entertainment.

George Plimpton
2011-05-25 10:54:05 EST
On 5/24/2011 10:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 25, 2:03 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2011 8:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 24, 8:30 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
>>>>>> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>>
>>>>>> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
>>>>>> notice.
>>
>>>>>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>>>>>> in the first place. It has no ethical meaning.
>>
>>>>>> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>>
>>>>> What do you think about modern farming methods, then?
>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>
>>> Well, are you familiar with the size of the stalls used to confine
>>> pregnant sows?
>>
>> *All* pregnant sows? Everywhere? Are you sure?
>>
>
> Well, the report gives specifics. The vast majority of pregnant sows
> who are kept in piggeries in Australia, certainly. This is something
> which Animal Liberation has been campaigning about for a long time.

Who wrote the report? What are the authors' credentials? Were the
authors a bunch of true-believing politicized activist shitbags like
you, infused with an unshakable but utterly misplaced faith in their own
righteous infallibility?


>>> I was giving a presentation about piggeries
>>
>> You are not competent for that. You're a fraud - but that was
>> established a long time ago.
>
> No such thing was established.

Absolutely it was established.


> I have not received any formal education in mathematical logic and set
> theory but I am extremely knowledgeable about those fields based on
> self-teaching.

You are not competent to give a presentation about piggeries.

Rupert
2011-05-25 19:41:31 EST
On May 26, 12:54 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 10:47 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 2:03 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2011 8:35 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 24, 8:30 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2011 8:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On May 12, 3:18 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
> >>>>>> ...between livestock animals' "getting to experience life" in the first
> >>>>>> place, and their welfare if they do exist?
>
> >>>>>> Because he's a stupid fuckwitted cracker who stupidly thinks we won't
> >>>>>> notice.
>
> >>>>>> Zero value should be placed on the animals' "getting to experience life"
> >>>>>> in the first place.  It has no ethical meaning.
>
> >>>>>> Great value should be placed on their welfare, *IF* they exist.
>
> >>>>> What do you think about modern farming methods, then?
>
> >>>> Which ones?
>
> >>> Well, are you familiar with the size of the stalls used to confine
> >>> pregnant sows?
>
> >> *All* pregnant sows?  Everywhere?  Are you sure?
>
> > Well, the report gives specifics. The vast majority of pregnant sows
> > who are kept in piggeries in Australia, certainly. This is something
> > which Animal Liberation has been campaigning about for a long time.
>
> Who wrote the report?  What are the authors' credentials?  Were the
> authors a bunch of true-believing politicized activist shitbags like
> you, infused with an unshakable but utterly misplaced faith in their own
> righteous infallibility?
>

The report was written by Voiceless. If you think the facts are being
misrepresented in some way then you ought to come up with your own
sources of factual information. You don't have any rational grounds
for thinking that anyone has an "utterly misplace faith in their own
righteous infallibility", and you don't have any rational grounds for
thinking that a report must contain misrepresentations of facts just
because it was written by Voiceless.

You don't have any idea about piggeries in Australia. You don't have
any rational grounds for rubbishing the report until you have read it
and made some effort to do your own research about the issue. If you
can't be bothered making any effort to find out facts, then your
rubbishing of the report is just an expression of totally irrational
prejudices.

> >>> I was giving a presentation about piggeries
>
> >> You are not competent for that.  You're a fraud - but that was
> >> established a long time ago.
>
> > No such thing was established.
>
> Absolutely it was established.
>
> > I have not received any formal education in mathematical logic and set
> > theory but I am extremely knowledgeable about those fields based on
> > self-teaching.
>
> You are not competent to give a presentation about piggeries.

Yes, I am. I am knowledgeable about this issue. I was involved in a
campaign trying to get the public to give the government feedback on
the Welfare Code for Pigs. My friends have been involved with
investigations of actual piggeries. At one stage there was some talk
of me going and working in a piggery myself but that did not
eventuate. You know nothing about the issue whatsoever and refuse to
look at the factual information I have presented or any source of
factual information at all. You are an ignorant bigot.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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