Vegetarian Discussion: "Doctor" Wuss

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1   (First | Last)

D*@.
2013-03-12 14:09:28 EST


Rupert.

Rupert
2013-03-13 05:22:11 EST
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> Rupert.

What's your point; are you saying I wussed? Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?

D*@.
2013-03-14 15:58:07 EST
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> Rupert.
>
>What's your point; are you saying I wussed?

Fairly consistently from my pov.

>Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?

At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
of positive and negative value, you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
thought made the lives of any particular animals bad, and you couldn't give any
examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated. That's all
very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right. Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
would be better?

Rupert
2013-03-14 16:36:12 EST
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:58:07 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> Rupert.
>
> >
>
> >What's your point; are you saying I wussed?
>
>
>
> Fairly consistently from my pov.
>
>
>
> >Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?
>
>
>
> At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
>
> directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
>
> of positive and negative value,

I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value, and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.

> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>
> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,

I gave you a link to some information about what made the lives of broiler chickens bad.

> and you couldn't give any
>
> examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated.

I did. I said that I thought that most humans today had lives worth living. I've also mentioned that I think that some grass-raised cattle and free-roaming hens have lives that are worth living.

> That's all
>
> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>
> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.

It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?

> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>
> would be better?

I think that you're a moron.

D*@.
2013-03-18 17:35:28 EST
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:58:07 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> Rupert.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What's your point; are you saying I wussed?
>>
>>
>>
>> Fairly consistently from my pov.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
>>
>> directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
>>
>> of positive and negative value,
>
>I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,

Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.

>and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.

What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?

>> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>>
>> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>
>I gave you a link to some information

No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously. The fact that there's
nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.

>about what made the lives of broiler chickens bad.
>
>> and you couldn't give any
>>
>> examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated.
>
>I did. I said that I thought that most humans today had lives worth living. I've also mentioned that I think that some grass-raised cattle and free-roaming hens have lives that are worth living.

You mentioned the cattle but later retracted it. This is the first time I
remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living". Even
if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
you've done with the cattle.

>> That's all
>>
>> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>>
>> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>
>It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?

I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
false impression that "you" have obtained one.

>> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>>
>> would be better?
>
>I think that you're a moron.

That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
can comprehend:

In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.

To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.

Rupert
2013-03-18 18:07:30 EST
On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:58:07 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Rupert.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >What's your point; are you saying I wussed?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Fairly consistently from my pov.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
>
> >>
>
> >> directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
>
> >>
>
> >> of positive and negative value,
>
> >
>
> >I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,
>
>
>
> Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.
>

I criticise you for not giving any meaningful criteria for how you make the judgement.

>
>
> >and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.
>
>
>
> What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?
>

You told me that a life has positive value if it is not so full of suffering as to have negative value. Which obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about where you would draw the line at all.

>
>
> >> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>
> >>
>
> >> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>
> >
>
> >I gave you a link to some information
>
>
>
> No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously.

You're such a fool. You want me to dig up the link for you *again* when you refused to read it last time?

You can use Google as well as I can. Google for CIWF and their fact sheets about broiler chickens. If you think that anything they say is factually inaccurate, then let me know what.

> The fact that there's
>
> nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
>
> time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.
>

I gave you a link to a page which had detailed information about the welfare issues for broiler chickens.

>
>
> >about what made the lives of broiler chickens bad.
>
> >
>
> >> and you couldn't give any
>
> >>
>
> >> examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated.
>
> >
>
> >I did. I said that I thought that most humans today had lives worth living. I've also mentioned that I think that some grass-raised cattle and free-roaming hens have lives that are worth living.
>
>
>
> You mentioned the cattle but later retracted it.

I have no memory of that.

> This is the first time I
>
> remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living".

Well, it's not the first time I've said it.

> Even
>
> if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
>
> you've done with the cattle.
>
>
>
> >> That's all
>
> >>
>
> >> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>
> >>
>
> >> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>
> >
>
> >It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?
>
>
>
> I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
>
> very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
>
> like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
>
> false impression that "you" have obtained one.
>

Do you believe that there is an academic called Rupert McCallum who is employed by the University of Münster? Do you think that that person has a PhD? Do you think that he is the author of the three papers you can find on his webpage? Do you think that the photo of him on the University of Münster webpage is a true one? Do you think that I am impersonating that person?

>
>
> >> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>
> >>
>
> >> would be better?
>
> >
>
> >I think that you're a moron.
>
>
>
> That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
>
> life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
>
> you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
>
> some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
>
> Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
>
> can comprehend:
>
>
>
> In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.
>
>
>
> To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
>
> up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
>
> never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.


D*@.
2013-03-19 15:49:52 EST
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:58:07 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Rupert.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >What's your point; are you saying I wussed?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Fairly consistently from my pov.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> of positive and negative value,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.
>>
>
>I criticise you for not giving any meaningful criteria for how you make the judgement.

YOU give meaningful criteria for making the judgement between lives that are
good and those that aren't so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
about, or instead I can see that you haven't got the slightest idea which I
expect is the case.

>> >and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.
>>
>>
>>
>> What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?
>>
>
>You told me that a life has positive value if it is not so full of suffering as to have negative value.

That's what it means to me. Why do you think I should try to change how I
feel about it, and what do you think I should try to change it to?

>Which obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about where you would draw the line at all.

Try providing some example of you drawing the line between a life that's
"good" and one that's not good so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
about, or instead see the proof that you don't have any idea at all.

>> >> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I gave you a link to some information
>>
>>
>>
>> No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously.
>
>You're such a fool. You want me to dig up the link for you *again* when you refused to read it last time?

YOU would need to present the INFORMATION FROM the supposed page(s) that you
think might help you with whatever it is you're trying to do. So far I can't
believe you have any idea what you're trying to do, much less are you aware of
any information that could possibly help you do whatever in tf it is.

>You can use Google as well as I can. Google for CIWF and their fact sheets about broiler chickens. If you think that anything they say is factually inaccurate, then let me know what.

They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would
have presented it weeks ago.

>> The fact that there's
>>
>> nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
>>
>> time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.
>>
>
>I gave you a link to a page which had detailed information about the welfare issues for broiler chickens.

If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
don't believe it does.

>> >about what made the lives of broiler chickens bad.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> and you couldn't give any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I did. I said that I thought that most humans today had lives worth living. I've also mentioned that I think that some grass-raised cattle and free-roaming hens have lives that are worth living.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mentioned the cattle but later retracted it.
>
>I have no memory of that.

It seems that at the time you retracted it you didn't remember ever having
mentioned them. Maybe you won't remember the next time either....

>> This is the first time I
>>
>> remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living".
>
>Well, it's not the first time I've said it.

Do you think all cage free chickens have decent lives, or only some? If only
some, where do you think you draw the line and why?

>> Even
>>
>> if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
>>
>> you've done with the cattle.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That's all
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
>>
>> very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
>>
>> like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
>>
>> false impression that "you" have obtained one.
>>
>
>Do you believe that there is an academic called Rupert McCallum who is employed by the University of Münster? Do you think that that person has a PhD? Do you think that he is the author of the three papers you can find on his webpage? Do you think that the photo of him on the University of Münster webpage is a true one? Do you think that I am impersonating that person?

From my pov it's pathetic to think that a person who doesn't believe the
distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, is
employed in any sort of "teaching" position. Such a person isn't fit to "teach"
students of any age, imo.

>> >> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> would be better?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I think that you're a moron.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
>>
>> life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
>>
>> you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
>>
>> some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
>>
>> Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
>>
>> can comprehend:
>>
>>
>>
>> In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.
>>
>>
>>
>> To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
>>
>> up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
>>
>> never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.

That's another reason it would be pathetic if you're any sort of "teacher"
from my pov. If you honestly don't understand that there are animals in all
groups of domestic animals who have good lives, then you don't have a realistic
interpretation of reality and anything you would be likely to "teach" other
people about it would be distorted and unrealistic.

Rupert
2013-03-19 16:17:02 EST
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:49:52 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:58:07 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:09:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Rupert.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >What's your point; are you saying I wussed?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Fairly consistently from my pov.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Did I fail to reply to one of your posts or something?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> At the time I presented this information you were wussing in several
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> directions. You still appeared unable to appreciate a distinction between lives
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> of positive and negative value,
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I criticise you for not giving any meaningful criteria for how you make the judgement.
>
>
>
> YOU give meaningful criteria for making the judgement between lives that are
>
> good and those that aren't so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>
> about, or instead I can see that you haven't got the slightest idea which I
>
> expect is the case.
>

I haven't been advocating any argument based on the distinction between lives that are good and those that aren't. If I did make such an argument then I'd feel an obligation to try to give precise criteria for how the distinction was to be drawn. In the past I have given you some criteria for how the distinction can be drawn.

>
>
> >> >and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You told me that a life has positive value if it is not so full of suffering as to have negative value.
>
>
>
> That's what it means to me. Why do you think I should try to change how I
>
> feel about it, and what do you think I should try to change it to?
>

This statement obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about how to draw the distiction between "positive value" and "negative value". It's circular.

>
>
> >Which obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about where you would draw the line at all.
>
>
>
> Try providing some example of you drawing the line between a life that's
>
> "good" and one that's not good so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>
> about, or instead see the proof that you don't have any idea at all.
>

I've talked about this before. That distinction is not a precise distinction.

>
>
> >> >> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I gave you a link to some information
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously.
>
> >
>
> >You're such a fool. You want me to dig up the link for you *again* when you refused to read it last time?
>
>
>
> YOU would need to present the INFORMATION FROM the supposed page(s) that you
>
> think might help you with whatever it is you're trying to do.

Why can't you just follow the link and read the information?

> So far I can't
>
> believe you have any idea what you're trying to do, much less are you aware of
>
> any information that could possibly help you do whatever in tf it is.
>
>
>
> >You can use Google as well as I can. Google for CIWF and their fact sheets about broiler chickens. If you think that anything they say is factually inaccurate, then let me know what.
>
>
>
> They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would
>
> have presented it weeks ago.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
> >> The fact that there's
>
> >>
>
> >> nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
>
> >>
>
> >> time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I gave you a link to a page which had detailed information about the welfare issues for broiler chickens.
>
>
>
> If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
>
> don't believe it does.
>

I did present it.

>
>
> >> >about what made the lives of broiler chickens bad.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and you couldn't give any
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> examples of any types of creatures you don't want to see eliminated.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I did. I said that I thought that most humans today had lives worth living. I've also mentioned that I think that some grass-raised cattle and free-roaming hens have lives that are worth living.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You mentioned the cattle but later retracted it.
>
> >
>
> >I have no memory of that.
>
>
>
> It seems that at the time you retracted it you didn't remember ever having
>
> mentioned them. Maybe you won't remember the next time either....
>

Well, you refuse to give me any links to what I actually wrote, and I don't really feel inclined to take your word for it when you say I changed my mind.

>
>
> >> This is the first time I
>
> >>
>
> >> remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living".
>
> >
>
> >Well, it's not the first time I've said it.
>
>
>
> Do you think all cage free chickens have decent lives, or only some? If only
>
> some, where do you think you draw the line and why?
>

I'd have to look further into what the lives of cage free chickens are like before I could comment about that.

>
>
> >> Even
>
> >>
>
> >> if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
>
> >>
>
> >> you've done with the cattle.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> That's all
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
>
> >>
>
> >> very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
>
> >>
>
> >> like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
>
> >>
>
> >> false impression that "you" have obtained one.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Do you believe that there is an academic called Rupert McCallum who is employed by the University of Münster? Do you think that that person has a PhD? Do you think that he is the author of the three papers you can find on his webpage? Do you think that the photo of him on the University of Münster webpage is a true one? Do you think that I am impersonating that person?
>
>
>
> From my pov it's pathetic to think that a person who doesn't believe the
>
> distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, is
>
> employed in any sort of "teaching" position.

I don't have any teaching duties at the moment.

> Such a person isn't fit to "teach"
>
> students of any age, imo.
>

Who knows, maybe there are some people out there who value your opinion ...

>
>
> >> >> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> would be better?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I think that you're a moron.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
>
> >>
>
> >> life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
>
> >>
>
> >> you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
>
> >>
>
> >> some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
>
> >>
>
> >> Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
>
> >>
>
> >> can comprehend:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
>
> >>
>
> >> up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
>
> >>
>
> >> never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.
>
>
>
> That's another reason it would be pathetic if you're any sort of "teacher"
>
> from my pov. If you honestly don't understand that there are animals in all
>
> groups of domestic animals who have good lives, then you don't have a realistic
>
> interpretation of reality and anything you would be likely to "teach" other
>
> people about it would be distorted and unrealistic.

On the other hand, your opinion about the matter is pretty much worthless.

D*@.
2013-03-21 17:50:28 EST
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:49:52 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I criticise you for not giving any meaningful criteria for how you make the judgement.
>>
>>
>>
>> YOU give meaningful criteria for making the judgement between lives that are
>>
>> good and those that aren't so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>>
>> about, or instead I can see that you haven't got the slightest idea which I
>>
>> expect is the case.
>>
>
>I haven't been advocating any argument based on the distinction between lives that are good and those that aren't.

So you DO want to eliminate all life not just livestock, since you don't
make any distinction between the value of life for any of them. You can't want
to eliminate some animals and not others, without making some sort of
distinction. I can't believe you are honestly too stupid to know that, meaning
you're being dishonest.

>If I did make such an argument then I'd feel an obligation to try to give precise criteria for how the distinction was to be drawn.

You have made it and you ARE obligated to give precise criteria for how you
draw the distinction between which beings you would allow to live and which you
would eliminate. Try doing it now. Go:

>In the past I have given you some criteria for how the distinction can be drawn.

You have never provided anything acceptable. I challenge you to try doing it
now, since you DO want to make the distinction. At least that's what you claimed
the last time. If you're now back to confessing that you want to see the
elimination of all life then and ONLY then are you relieved of your obligation
to explain the cirteria for your distinction.

>> >> >and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You told me that a life has positive value if it is not so full of suffering as to have negative value.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's what it means to me. Why do you think I should try to change how I
>>
>> feel about it, and what do you think I should try to change it to?
>>
>
>This statement obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about how to draw the distiction between "positive value" and "negative value".

It does to me.

>It's circular.

You can't think about it. Most people can.

>> >Which obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about where you would draw the line at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try providing some example of you drawing the line between a life that's
>>
>> "good" and one that's not good so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>>
>> about, or instead see the proof that you don't have any idea at all.
>>
>
>I've talked about this before. That distinction is not a precise distinction.

It's distinct enough that you want to see the elimination of apparently all
life, but if not all life a very significant amount of it. YOU claim to make the
distinction you're dishonestly pretending you don't try to make, OR you're lying
when you claim that you don't want to eliminate all life. That's the postion
you're in.

>> >> >> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I gave you a link to some information
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You're such a fool. You want me to dig up the link for you *again* when you refused to read it last time?
>>
>>
>>
>> YOU would need to present the INFORMATION FROM the supposed page(s) that you
>>
>> think might help you with whatever it is you're trying to do.
>
>Why can't you just follow the link and read the information?
>
>> So far I can't
>>
>> believe you have any idea what you're trying to do, much less are you aware of
>>
>> any information that could possibly help you do whatever in tf it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> >You can use Google as well as I can. Google for CIWF and their fact sheets about broiler chickens. If you think that anything they say is factually inaccurate, then let me know what.
>>
>>
>>
>> They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would
>>
>> have presented it weeks ago.
>>
>
>Y

They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would have
presented it weeks ago. If you want people to think there is something worth
reading then I challenge you to try quoting it now. Go:
. . .
>> >> The fact that there's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I gave you a link to a page which had detailed information about the welfare issues for broiler chickens.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
>>
>> don't believe it does.
>>
>
>I

If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
don't believe it does. If you want people to think there is something worth
reading then I again challenge you to try presenting the quotes now. Go:

. . .
>> It seems that at the time you retracted it you didn't remember ever having
>>
>> mentioned them. Maybe you won't remember the next time either....
>>
>
>Well, you refuse to give me any links to what I actually wrote, and I don't really feel inclined to take your word for it when you say I changed my mind.

It doesn't matter what you say anyway, since you change it whenever you
want.

>> >> This is the first time I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living".
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, it's not the first time I've said it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think all cage free chickens have decent lives, or only some? If only
>>
>> some, where do you think you draw the line and why?
>>
>
>I'd have to look further into what the lives of cage free chickens are like before I could comment about that.

Why haven't you already done it? Like, maybe even before you made your
decision that you'd like to see all but free range chickens eliminated?

>> >> Even
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you've done with the cattle.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> That's all
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?

I saw something about a Rupert McCallum involved with some Moral
Perfectionism Discussion Group, but how could a guy who doesn't believe the
distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, and who
doesn't understand that some animals in all groups of domestic animals have good
lives and easy basics like that, have any business in a group attempting moral
perfectionism? Well...from what I saw in a quick search there doesn't seem to be
a whole lot going on over there.

>> >> I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> false impression that "you" have obtained one.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Do you believe that there is an academic called Rupert McCallum who is employed by the University of Münster? Do you think that that person has a PhD? Do you think that he is the author of the three papers you can find on his webpage? Do you think that the photo of him on the University of Münster webpage is a true one? Do you think that I am impersonating that person?
>>
>>
>>
>> From my pov it's pathetic to think that a person who doesn't believe the
>>
>> distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, is
>>
>> employed in any sort of "teaching" position.
>
>I don't have any teaching duties at the moment.

GOOD!

>> Such a person isn't fit to "teach"
>>
>> students of any age, imo.
>>
>
>Who knows, maybe there are some people out there who value your opinion ...

There are. Not eliminationists though, since my opinion works against what
they want to believe. Wanting to provide decent lives for billions of animals is
the total opposite of wanting such animals to never exist, and as you may be
able to tell I'm in favor of the former.

>> >> >> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> would be better?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I think that you're a moron.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> can comprehend:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's another reason it would be pathetic if you're any sort of "teacher"
>>
>> from my pov. If you honestly don't understand that there are animals in all
>>
>> groups of domestic animals who have good lives, then you don't have a realistic
>>
>> interpretation of reality and anything you would be likely to "teach" other
>>
>> people about it would be distorted and unrealistic.
>
>On the other hand, your opinion about the matter is pretty much worthless.

Only the part about thinking it would be pathetic for a person in your
position to be a teacher is an opinion. The fact that if you honestly don't
understand that there are animals in all groups of domestic animals who have
good lives then you don't have a realistic interpretation of reality is exactly
that. A fact. You COULD NOT have a realistic interpretation of reality without
being aware of that fact and of other related facts.

Rupert
2013-03-22 02:37:08 EST
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:50:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:49:52 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35:28 PM UTC+1, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I am able to make a decision for myself about whether or not it's on balance a worthwhile thing to bring an organism into existence. My point is that I don't think that there are any objective truths about whether or not a life has positive value,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Then you're extra low for criticising me for not presenting them.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I criticise you for not giving any meaningful criteria for how you make the judgement.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> YOU give meaningful criteria for making the judgement between lives that are
>
> >>
>
> >> good and those that aren't so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>
> >>
>
> >> about, or instead I can see that you haven't got the slightest idea which I
>
> >>
>
> >> expect is the case.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I haven't been advocating any argument based on the distinction between lives that are good and those that aren't.
>
>
>
> So you DO want to eliminate all life not just livestock, since you don't
>
> make any distinction between the value of life for any of them.

No.

> You can't want
>
> to eliminate some animals and not others, without making some sort of
>
> distinction.

I've told you repeatedly that I do make a distinction.

> I can't believe you are honestly too stupid to know that, meaning
>
> you're being dishonest.
>
>
>
> >If I did make such an argument then I'd feel an obligation to try to give precise criteria for how the distinction was to be drawn.
>
>
>
> You have made it

Which argument do you have in mind, here?

> and you ARE obligated to give precise criteria for how you
>
> draw the distinction between which beings you would allow to live and which you
>
> would eliminate. Try doing it now. Go:
>

Why am I obliged to give precise criteria for it?

>
>
> >In the past I have given you some criteria for how the distinction can be drawn.
>
>
>
> You have never provided anything acceptable.

Why was what I wrote in the past not acceptable?

> I challenge you to try doing it
>
> now, since you DO want to make the distinction. At least that's what you claimed
>
> the last time. If you're now back to confessing that you want to see the
>
> elimination of all life then and ONLY then are you relieved of your obligation
>
> to explain the cirteria for your distinction.
>
>
>
> >> >> >and I also don't think that you've conveyed any meaningful information about the criteria which you yourself use to determine whether or not you judge a life to have positive value.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> What did I tell you? What did I explain to you about what I told you?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You told me that a life has positive value if it is not so full of suffering as to have negative value.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's what it means to me. Why do you think I should try to change how I
>
> >>
>
> >> feel about it, and what do you think I should try to change it to?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >This statement obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about how to draw the distiction between "positive value" and "negative value".
>
>
>
> It does to me.
>

Then you are having semantic hallucinations.

>
>
> >It's circular.
>
>
>
> You can't think about it. Most people can.
>

False.

>
>
> >> >Which obviously doesn't convey any meaningful information about where you would draw the line at all.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Try providing some example of you drawing the line between a life that's
>
> >>
>
> >> "good" and one that's not good so I can see what you think you're trying to talk
>
> >>
>
> >> about, or instead see the proof that you don't have any idea at all.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I've talked about this before. That distinction is not a precise distinction.
>
>
>
> It's distinct enough that you want to see the elimination of apparently all
>
> life, but if not all life a very significant amount of it.

No.

> YOU claim to make the
>
> distinction you're dishonestly pretending you don't try to make, OR you're lying
>
> when you claim that you don't want to eliminate all life. That's the postion
>
> you're in.
>

Sometimes, when considering whether or not to bring an organism into existence, I would judge it to be on balance better if I didn't, other times I wouldn't make that judgement. This is a different distinction to the distinction between lives which are good and lives which are not. I don't claim to be able to give precise criteria for this distinction, either. I'm not in favour of trying to bring about the extinction of all or most sentient organisms.

>
>
> >> >> >> you couldn't say any particular sufferings you
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> thought made the lives of any particular animals bad,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I gave you a link to some information
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No info you're not ashamed to present here obviously.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You're such a fool. You want me to dig up the link for you *again* when you refused to read it last time?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> YOU would need to present the INFORMATION FROM the supposed page(s) that you
>
> >>
>
> >> think might help you with whatever it is you're trying to do.
>
> >
>
> >Why can't you just follow the link and read the information?
>
> >
>
> >> So far I can't
>
> >>
>
> >> believe you have any idea what you're trying to do, much less are you aware of
>
> >>
>
> >> any information that could possibly help you do whatever in tf it is.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >You can use Google as well as I can. Google for CIWF and their fact sheets about broiler chickens. If you think that anything they say is factually inaccurate, then let me know what.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would
>
> >>
>
> >> have presented it weeks ago.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Y
>
>
>
> They obviously don't have anything you think is worth reading or you would have
>
> presented it weeks ago.

I *did* present it! Sheesh!

> If you want people to think there is something worth
>
> reading then I challenge you to try quoting it now. Go:
>

"Broilers that are allowed to grow to adulthood to be used for breeding are restricted to between one fifth and one half of the amount of food they want to eat during their growing period and appear to be 'chronically hungry, frustrated, and stressed'."

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf

> . . .
>
> >> >> The fact that there's
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> nothing you're not ashamed to present shows clearly that it would be a waste of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> time for me to go look for something FOR YOU.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I gave you a link to a page which had detailed information about the welfare issues for broiler chickens.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
>
> >>
>
> >> don't believe it does.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I
>
>
>
> If it did you would have presented it weeks ago, so obviously even you
>
> don't believe it does.

Presented what? I gave you the link to the page. You want me to cut and paste the text into the post, is that it? Why?

> If you want people to think there is something worth
>
> reading then I again challenge you to try presenting the quotes now. Go:
>

I just quoted one sentence for you above. Let me know if you want any more.

>
>
> . . .
>
> >> It seems that at the time you retracted it you didn't remember ever having
>
> >>
>
> >> mentioned them. Maybe you won't remember the next time either....
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, you refuse to give me any links to what I actually wrote, and I don't really feel inclined to take your word for it when you say I changed my mind.
>
>
>
> It doesn't matter what you say anyway, since you change it whenever you
>
> want.
>
>
>
> >> >> This is the first time I
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> remember you conceding that any type of chicken has a life "worth living".
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, it's not the first time I've said it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Do you think all cage free chickens have decent lives, or only some? If only
>
> >>
>
> >> some, where do you think you draw the line and why?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'd have to look further into what the lives of cage free chickens are like before I could comment about that.
>
>
>
> Why haven't you already done it? Like, maybe even before you made your
>
> decision that you'd like to see all but free range chickens eliminated?
>

I've spent a certain amount of time gathering information about what the lives of most meat chickens are like, with the limited amount of time I have available to do research. On that basis, I've decided that it's on balance a good thing if fewer broiler chickens come into existence. If you have some information available which you think has a bearing on this issue, then I'm happy to have a look at it.

I wasn't really sure exactly what you had in mind when you said "cage-free chickens". Of the chickens who are not kept in cages, there's probably a fair amount of variation in the quality of their lives.

>
>
> >> >> Even
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> if you are saying it now, you are just as likely to deny it again later like
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you've done with the cattle.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> That's all
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> very wussile, on top of your mental ability to obtain a PhD seeming extremely
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> unlikely, so "Doctor" Wuss seems about right.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >It's pretty silly to talk as though it's some kind of open question whether or not I have a PhD. It's easy to confirm by Google the existence of an academic called Rupert McCallum who has a PhD and two publications. Do you think that I'm impersonating that person, do you?
>
>
>
> I saw something about a Rupert McCallum involved with some Moral
>
> Perfectionism Discussion Group, but how could a guy who doesn't believe the
>
> distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, and who
>
> doesn't understand that some animals in all groups of domestic animals have good
>
> lives and easy basics like that, have any business in a group attempting moral
>
> perfectionism? Well...from what I saw in a quick search there doesn't seem to be
>
> a whole lot going on over there.
>

Let me help you.

http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de/persdb/show_perspage.php?id=814

Do you think that the photograph on this page is a photograph of Dr. Rupert McCallum? Do you think that he has a PhD and two published papers? Do you think that he is the same person as me, or do you think that I am impersonating him?

>
>
> >> >> I can't believe a person who is as extremely mentally restricted as you very
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> very clearly appear to be, could obtain a PhD. I can and do believe a person
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> like yourself with the aid of other people like yourself, could present the
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> false impression that "you" have obtained one.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Do you believe that there is an academic called Rupert McCallum who is employed by the University of M�nster? Do you think that that person has a PhD? Do you think that he is the author of the three papers you can find on his webpage? Do you think that the photo of him on the University of M�nster webpage is a true one? Do you think that I am impersonating that person?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> From my pov it's pathetic to think that a person who doesn't believe the
>
> >>
>
> >> distinction between lives of positive and negative value means anything, is
>
> >>
>
> >> employed in any sort of "teaching" position.
>
> >
>
> >I don't have any teaching duties at the moment.
>
>
>
> GOOD!
>
>
>
> >> Such a person isn't fit to "teach"
>
> >>
>
> >> students of any age, imo.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Who knows, maybe there are some people out there who value your opinion ...
>
>
>
> There are.

A bold claim.

> Not eliminationists though, since my opinion works against what
>
> they want to believe. Wanting to provide decent lives for billions of animals is
>
> the total opposite of wanting such animals to never exist, and as you may be
>
> able to tell I'm in favor of the former.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> Do you think: the Wuss "Doctor"
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> would be better?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I think that you're a moron.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> That would make you below a moron in regards to appreciating the value of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> life, since you're below where I was with it when I was in sixth grade and
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you're WAAAAAY!!! below where I am now. You can't even appreciate the fact that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> some cats have "good" lives, putting you way below the level of most children.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Here's a clue for you that will probably always be more than you're little brain
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> can comprehend:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> In ALL groups of domestic animals there are some who have "good" lives.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> To learn to appreciate that one very obvious and basic fact would be a HUGE step
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> up for someone in a position that's as low as yours is, but you probably will
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> never be able to rise that "far" during your entire life. Sad, but true.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's another reason it would be pathetic if you're any sort of "teacher"
>
> >>
>
> >> from my pov. If you honestly don't understand that there are animals in all
>
> >>
>
> >> groups of domestic animals who have good lives, then you don't have a realistic
>
> >>
>
> >> interpretation of reality and anything you would be likely to "teach" other
>
> >>
>
> >> people about it would be distorted and unrealistic.
>
> >
>
> >On the other hand, your opinion about the matter is pretty much worthless.
>
>
>
> Only the part about thinking it would be pathetic for a person in your
>
> position to be a teacher is an opinion. The fact that if you honestly don't
>
> understand that there are animals in all groups of domestic animals who have
>
> good lives then you don't have a realistic interpretation of reality is exactly
>
> that.

For some reason you keep saying that I don't believe there are animals in all groups of domestic animals who have good lives. I don't know why you think this. I don't think I ever made any comment on the matter one way or the other. You'd want to be clear about what counts as a "group of domestic animals", like do hens kept in battery cages count as a "group"?

> A fact. You COULD NOT have a realistic interpretation of reality without
>
> being aware of that fact and of other related facts.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


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