Vegetarian Discussion: The Unlearning Of Rupert And "Dutch"

The Unlearning Of Rupert And "Dutch"
Posts: 31

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
2011-10-17 15:32:55 EST
On 10/17/2011 3:26 PM, dh@. wrote:
> before the unlearning:
>
> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
> in their place." - Rupert
>
> after the unlearning:
>
> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

No conflict.

D*@.
2011-10-17 18:26:32 EST
before the unlearning:

"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert

after the unlearning:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

before the unlearning:

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

after the unlearning:

"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence
is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter
you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"

Dutch
2011-10-17 20:37:36 EST

<*h@.> wrote some bullshit

I didn't read your incoherent garbage but I bet it describes "learning", not
"unlearning" (which doesn't exist)


Loonie
2011-10-19 15:34:39 EST
George Plimpton wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 3:26 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> before the unlearning:
>>
>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> after the unlearning:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
> No conflict.

One of these decades a new race of intelligent creatures will swamp our
planet, and then we will become their food and we will thoroughly
deserve it.

George Plimpton
2011-10-20 16:42:01 EST
On 10/20/2011 4:31 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>> before the unlearning:
>>>
>>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>>> in their place." - Rupert
>>>
>>> after the unlearning:
>>>
>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> No conflict.
>
> Yeah there sure is.

There is no conflict.

There also was no "unlearning" - that's just another fuckwitted
cracKKKer Fuckwittism - pure fuckwittery.

You're an idiot, Fuckwit - an unlearned, shuffling, shit-4-braincell idiot.

George Plimpton
2011-10-20 16:43:13 EST
On 10/20/2011 4:33 PM, dh@. wrote:
> [fuckwittery]

There is no such thing as "unlearning".


D*@.
2011-10-20 19:31:37 EST
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:32:55 -0700, Goo lied:

>On 10/17/2011 3:26 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> before the unlearning:
>>
>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>> in their place." - Rupert
>>
>> after the unlearning:
>>
>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>
>No conflict.

Yeah there sure is. You seem to have unlearned too, Goo:

before the unlearning:

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration. I also give the not-yet-begun lives
of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a
lot of consideration" - Goo

after the unlearning:

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

D*@.
2011-10-20 19:33:53 EST
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:34:39 +0100, Loonie <Loonie@nowhere.con> wrote:

>Goo wrote:
>> On 10/17/2011 3:26 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> before the unlearning:
>>>
>>> "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>>> that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>>> rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>>> in their place." - Rupert
>>>
>>> after the unlearning:
>>>
>>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>> No conflict.
>
>One of these decades a new race of intelligent creatures will swamp our
>planet, and then we will become their food

That's one possibility. Another is that they won't.

>and we will thoroughly deserve it.

How do you figure?

D*@.
2011-10-20 19:42:18 EST
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:37:36 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> quoted some of "Dutch's" incoherent garbage:
>
>>before the unlearning:
>>
>>"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
>>exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>>
>>after the unlearning:
>>
>>"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence
>>is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter
>>you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
>
>I didn't read your incoherent garbage

LOL!!! That's an amusing way to see you respond to your own ideas.

>but I bet it describes "learning",

In the first example of you you had learned something, so you suggested. In
the first example of Rupert he had learned something, so he suggested.

>not "unlearning"

In the second example of both of you you appear to have unlearned what you
suggested in the first example that you had learned. Though you've never
explained how you managed to unlearn something so significant, you did at one
point weakly pule something about only unlearning things that aren't true, or
some such thing.

>(which doesn't exist)

LOL! Either you have unlearned, or you're dishonestly claiming you can't
appreciate something that you still can appreciate: the lives of animals,
livestock in particular. The same is true for your brother Rupert.

Dutch
2011-10-20 19:47:07 EST

Hey shit-4-brains, take note of the debate that Mr Plimpton and myself are
carrying on with Glen and Derek, two "ethical vegetarians" then apologize to
us for years of falsely calling us ARAs.

<insert apology here>


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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