Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison: No Valid *ethical* Objection To "ar"

Fuckwit David Harrison: No Valid *ethical* Objection To "ar"
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
2012-12-03 11:53:49 EST
The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
"ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
*Goo*; nothing about animals.

Rupert
2012-12-03 12:21:06 EST
On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat.  It's all about
> *Goo*; nothing about animals.

What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?

George Plimpton
2012-12-03 12:42:11 EST
On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?

That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.


George Plimpton
2012-12-03 12:53:59 EST
On 12/3/2012 9:42 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.

...and therefore, all of the ethical prescriptions "aras" want to
inflict on humans are completely groundless at best, and perhaps
themselves completely unethical - that is, they would impose hardship on
harm on humans for no good reason.


Mr.Smartypants
2012-12-03 13:22:09 EST
On Dec 3, 10:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 9:42 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> > On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat.  It's all about
> >>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> > That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> > of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> ...and therefore, all of the ethical prescriptions "aras" want to
> inflict on humans are completely groundless at best, and perhaps
> themselves completely unethical - that is, they would impose hardship on
> harm on humans for no good reason.


you're full of shit as usual.

Rupert
2012-12-03 15:56:48 EST
On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat.  It's all about
> >> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> > What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.

Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?

George Plimpton
2012-12-03 15:59:40 EST
On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?

We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
time. You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
gave you my answer.


Rupert
2012-12-03 16:12:37 EST
On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat.  It's all about
> >>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> > Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> time.

No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
your view clearly.

> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
> gave you my answer.

You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
Your objection seems to me to pretty much amount to saying "I don't
agree". You must be aware that some animal rights advocates make some
effort to argue for their point of view. You're not engaging with
these arguments in any serious way.

George Plimpton
2012-12-03 16:16:23 EST
On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
>>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat. It's all about
>>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>>
>>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>>
>>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
>>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>>
>>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>>
>> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
>> time.
>
> No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> your view clearly.

No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time. I have discussed
everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
over the years. You know everything I think on it. Now, you're just
trying to waste my time. Fuck off, bitch.


>> You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
>> gave you my answer.
>
> You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.

Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
great detail.


Rupert
2012-12-04 06:09:08 EST
On Dec 3, 10:16 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 12/3/2012 1:12 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 12/3/2012 12:56 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/3/2012 9:21 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 3, 5:53 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> The only objection Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - has ever made to
> >>>>>> "ar" is that he would no longer be able to consume meat.  It's all about
> >>>>>> *Goo*; nothing about animals.
>
> >>>>> What do you think the best objections to animal rights are?
>
> >>>> That its core premises about the "rights" and/or moral considerability
> >>>> of animals are completely and irremediably wrong.
>
> >>> Okay. So what are these core premises that you have in mind?
>
> >> We've been over all this before; now you're just trying to waste my
> >> time.
>
> > No, I'm not; I'm trying to get you to fulfil your obligation to state
> > your view clearly.
>
> No, you're not - you're trying to waste my time.  I have discussed
> everything about this, in detail and with you specifically, many times
> over the years.  You know everything I think on it.  Now, you're just
> trying to waste my time.  Fuck off, bitch.
>

I'm sorry that you regard it as a waste of time to try to defend your
views.

> >>   You asked what I think are the best objections to "ar", and I
> >> gave you my answer.
>
> > You gave me a partial answer, and refused to clarify it any further.
>
> Yes, because you already know my objections and the reasons for them in
> great detail.

I've got some idea of what your objections would be. I don't know in
great detail.

As far as your performance in this thread goes, you are in the same
boat as David Harrison: you haven't presented any kind of serious
objection to animal rights philosophy.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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