Vegetarian Discussion: Pre-existence And "the Pipeline"

Pre-existence And "the Pipeline"
Posts: 100

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 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)

Mr.Smartypants
2011-11-27 00:01:47 EST
Gooberdoodle claims (sometimes) that he doesn't believe in pre-
existence yet he claims to give lots of consideration to animals not
yet born but which are "in the pipeline".

So where does Giggity Gooberdoodle think this "pipeline" starts?

George Plimpton
2011-11-27 00:15:04 EST
On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> [bullshit]

Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals
that haven't even been conceived deserve none.

This is not in dispute.


Rupert
2011-11-27 21:07:50 EST
On Nov 27, 6:15 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > [bullshit]
>
> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration.  Animals
> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
>
> This is not in dispute.

It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
it means something. You seem to be saying that conception predates
existence. Is this correct?

Dutch
2011-11-28 02:46:40 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> On Nov 27, 6:15 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>> > [bullshit]
>>
>> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals
>> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
>>
>> This is not in dispute.
>
> It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
> it means something.

It does mean something, farmers know that they will be raising more
livestock in the upcoming season, so they have to be prepared with supplies
of feed, hay, or whatever the animals will need... They have no obligations
to those animals *yet* but they *will*. You're starting to sound like baby
fuckwit Smartypants.

>You seem to be saying that conception predates
> existence. Is this correct?

Conception is the beginning of the existence of each unique organism.




Rupert
2011-11-28 04:05:36 EST


Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> > On Nov 27, 6:15 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>
> >> > [bullshit]
> >>
> >> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals
> >> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
> >>
> >> This is not in dispute.
> >
> > It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
> > it means something.
>
> It does mean something, farmers know that they will be raising more
> livestock in the upcoming season, so they have to be prepared with supplies
> of feed, hay, or whatever the animals will need... They have no obligations
> to those animals *yet* but they *will*. You're starting to sound like baby
> fuckwit Smartypants.
>

The statement by Ball was "Animals that are about to exist merit
consideration". This is talking as though it is meaningful to
predicate something of an animal that does not yet exist, which is not
the case. It is fine to say that animals which exist in the future
will merit consideration in the future; that is different.

> >You seem to be saying that conception predates
> > existence. Is this correct?
>
> Conception is the beginning of the existence of each unique organism.

I agree.

George Plimpton
2011-11-28 09:57:52 EST
On 11/27/2011 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 27, 6:15 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals
>> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
>>
>> This is not in dispute.
>
> It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
> it means something.

If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of the
gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, and whose
welfare I can affect. Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide
for those animals' welfare before they are born?

Mr.Smartypants
2011-11-28 13:23:01 EST
On Nov 28, 7:57 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/27/2011 6:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 6:15 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> [bullshit]
>
> >> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration.  Animals
> >> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
>
> >> This is not in dispute.
>
> > It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
> > it means something.
>
> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of the
> gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, and whose
> welfare I can affect.  Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide
> for those animals' welfare before they are born?

Maybe even before they are conceived? Where does the "pipeline" start,
Gooberdoodle?

George Plimpton
2011-11-28 15:10:19 EST
On 11/28/2011 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:

>> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration.
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given."

Not a quote.

D*@.
2011-11-28 17:45:19 EST
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:05:36 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > On Nov 27, 6:15 am, Goo wrote:
>> >> On 11/26/2011 9:01 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > [bullshit]
>> >>
>> >> Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals
>> >> that haven't even been conceived deserve none.
>> >>
>> >> This is not in dispute.
>> >
>> > It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if
>> > it means something.
>>
>> It does mean something, farmers know that they will be raising more
>> livestock in the upcoming season, so they have to be prepared with supplies
>> of feed, hay, or whatever the animals will need... They have no obligations
>> to those animals *yet* but they *will*. You're starting to sound like baby
>> fuckwit Smartypants.
>>
>
>The statement by Ball

Is the only reason you call Goo "Ball" because he's your hero and you know
he loves it, or do you have some other reason(s) for kissing his ass that way?
And btw, just as Goo and "Dutch" frequently reveal themselves, you reveal Goo by
your own smoochings. You don't go so far as to call him Mr Plimpton, which I
expect is something you discussed with Goo via email in regards to how you
people want to represent your relationship with each other.

>was "Animals that are about to exist merit
>consideration". This is talking as though it is meaningful to
>predicate something of an animal that does not yet exist, which is not
>the case.

Goo is stupid enough to have claimed that:

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

>It is fine to say that animals which exist in the future
>will merit consideration in the future; that is different.

Why might you be able to consider the lives of animals at some point in the
future, even though as yet you're still unable to consider those of any in
existence now? What could cause the turning point? If it happens, do you think
that might allow you to finally for the first time in your life possibly even
learn to appreciate the distinction between lives of positive or negative value?
Let's give you a little help. Though you claim not to be aware of it since we've
both defined lives of positive value it's past time for you to stop lying about
it and try to face a little bit of reality for once. We'll go with YOUR favorite
definition since you haven't been able to comprehend much less appreciate
anything else. The following is the best your mind has been able to do thus far:

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all" - Rupert

It's probably not true or you would be an AW supporter instead of an
eliminationist, but we're pretending that you can comprehend in the hopes that
maybe some day you'll get to be a big boy and actually be able to appreciate the
concept instead of just parrot the idea. Anyway, if you could learn to actually
believe it then you would be in a position to appreciate the distinction between
it and what little you actually are able to believe, which is:

that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is *not* better that they live that life
than that they not live at all.

Actually you can't even get that far because if you could you would be able to
appreciate the distinction because you would only believe *some* do not have
lives of positive value, meaning you could appreciate that some others do. But
you are stuck in your tiny little bubble of unreality desperately clinging to
YOUR eliminationist belief:

that *no* nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
than that they not live at all.

>> >You seem to be saying that conception predates
>> > existence. Is this correct?
>>
>> Conception is the beginning of the existence of each unique organism.
>
>I agree.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

D*@.
2011-11-28 17:45:29 EST
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:57:52 -0800, Goo wrote:

>If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them

LOL!!!! What a stupid Goober!
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)


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