Vegetarian Discussion: "Getting To Experience Life" Is Not A Benefit

"Getting To Experience Life" Is Not A Benefit
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1   (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-02-09 02:36:45 EST
If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
*THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
done.

Rupert
2013-02-09 03:22:48 EST
On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>
> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>
> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
>
> animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
>
> live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
>
> done.

I think you've said that a few times before.

George Plimpton
2013-02-09 18:38:40 EST
On 2/9/2013 12:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>>
>> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>>
>> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
>>
>> animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
>>
>> live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
>>
>> done.
>
> I think you've said that a few times before.

I couldn't remember for sure if I had done.


D*@.
2013-02-10 18:48:12 EST
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:22:48 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>>
>> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>>
>> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
>>
>> animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
>>
>> live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
>>
>> done.
>
>I think you've said that a few times before.

It's one of the ways the Goober tries to reassure people that there's
nothing wrong with the elimination objective, and of course one of the ways he
reveals his faith in the misnomer.

George Plimpton
2013-02-10 20:48:16 EST
On 2/10/2013 3:48 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - pissed and moaned:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:22:48 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>>>
>>> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>>>
>>> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
>>>
>>> animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
>>>
>>> live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
>>>
>>> done.
>>
>> I think you've said that a few times before.
>
> It's one of the ways

It's how I point out that you're wrong, *Goo*.


D*@.
2013-02-12 16:58:51 EST
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:48:16 -0800, Goo puled:

>On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:48:12 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:22:48 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>>>>
>>>> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>>>>
>>>> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some number of
>>>>
>>>> animals that might have lived instead never live, then they just don't
>>>>
>>>> live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing to regret; no harm was
>>>>
>>>> done.
>>>
>>>I think you've said that a few times before.
>>
>> It's one of the ways the Goober tries to reassure people that there's
>>nothing wrong with the elimination objective, and of course one of the ways he
>>reveals his faith in the misnomer.
>
>It's how I

Your objective is to reassure people that they should have faith in the
misnomer Goo, and we know it.

George Plimpton
2013-02-12 17:50:02 EST
On 2/12/2013 1:58 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - pissed and moaned:

> On 2/10/2013 5:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/10/2013 3:48 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - pissed and moaned:
>>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:22:48 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:36:45 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> If livestock animals that might have lived instead never live, because
>>>>>
>>>>> people stop eating meat, there is no "loss" of any "benefit."
>>>>>
>>>>> *THEREFORE*, there is nothing to consider about that. If some
>>>>> number of animals that might have lived instead never live, then
>>>>> they just don't live, and that's the end of it. There's nothing
>>>>> to regret; no harm was done.
>>>>
>>>> I think you've said that a few times before.
>>>
>>> It's one of the ways
>>
>> It's how I point out that you're wrong, *Goo*.
>
> Your objective is to reassure people that they should have faith in the
> misnomer

My objective, *Goo*, is to show that you have not made a case for why
anyone ought to place any weight on animals' "getting to experience
life." If some animals that might have lived instead never do, then
that's just how it goes.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


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