Vegetarian Discussion: Eliminationistic

Eliminationistic
Posts: 28

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2013-08-19 20:12:47 EST


Goo.

Dutch
2013-08-19 20:22:45 EST
dh@. wrote:
>
>
> Goo.
>

idiot

Rupert
2013-08-20 00:37:12 EST
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> Goo.

Elimination of what?

D*@.
2013-08-21 14:18:02 EST
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> Goo.
>
>Elimination of what?

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

What do you think Goo is referring to? It appears that Goo is referring to
livestock. It also seems more than likely that Goo feels that same way about all
domestic animals, since he can't appreciate life for ANY creatures regardless of
the quality of their lives.

D*@.
2013-08-21 14:18:38 EST
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:22:45 -0700, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

>*h@. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Goo.
>>
>
>i

You too of course.

>di

You admitted to being an eliminationist when you first started posting and I
don't believe you've changed other than that you started lying about it.

>ot

MAYBE you honestly think you have changed completely from an eliminationist
to favoring livestock but I doubt it, and I KNOW you never began to favor decent
AW over elimination. You can't even distinguish between lives of positive and
negative value, much less can you strongly favor one over the other or one over
elimination.

Rupert
2013-08-21 22:34:35 EST
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:18:02 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> Goo.
>
> >
>
> >Elimination of what?
>
>
>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
>
> way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
>
>
>
> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>
> ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>
>
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>

It's very hard to know what to make of it when you talk as though you honestly believe that Ball is in favour of the elimination of animal agriculture.

D*@.
2013-08-22 17:41:33 EST
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:18:02 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> Goo.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Elimination of what?
>>
>>
>>
>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
>>
>> way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>
>>
>> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>
>> ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>
>>
>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>
>>
>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>
>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>
>
>It's very hard to know what to make of it when you talk as though you honestly believe that Ball is in favour of the elimination of animal agriculture.

That's the only thing that makes sense. Maybe you people honestly can't see
how, but to someone who honestly IS in favor of AW over elimination and DOES
appreciate the fact that raising animals for food provides lives of positive
value for billions of animals, it's as clear as can be. ONLY eliminationists
have reason to oppose taking those lives into consideration. That pretty much
exposes him right there. "Dutch" too.The reasons why he would pretend (though
very very poorly) to be a misnomer opponent are obvious too. One is you people
surely are aware that people who honestly oppose the misnomer don't have respect
for those who are in favor of it. So one reason Goo pretends is to try not to be
put in that category. Another is to try to act like he and I should be on the
same side, trying to discredit me with the appearance that even my own "team
mates" are opposed to what I point out being pointed out. And another reason is
to create a bad impression of misnomer opponents by his own behavior since Goo's
portraying himself as one and he lies constantly, and is overly childishly
insulting, and completely inconsiderate of all creatures. He wants to create the
impression that that's how misnomer opponents are. What could be more low-life
than to lie that someone has a felony record for fighting dogs when the person
has never even seen a dog fight, and is opposed to it? That alone makes Goo an
extremely contemptible person. It doesn't seem that way to you because from your
pov anything that supports elimination is ok:

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

but from any non-eliminationistic pov Goo is about as low as a person can get.
Another thing is that Goo has never been able to give any respectable opposition
to the misnomer himself even when challenged. Goo can't, and no one else can
provide any examples for him. I've challenged you to provide some in the past
when this came up. You couldn't provide any then and I'm confident you can't
provide any now. That means NOTHING exists to make me believe Goo might honestly
favor AW over the misnomer, but a number of things cause me to believe he's in
favor of the misnomer and trying to encourage acceptance of it.

Rupert
2013-08-22 22:06:59 EST
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:41:33 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:18:02 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Goo.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Elimination of what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
>
> >>
>
> >> way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>
> >>
>
> >> ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>
> >>
>
> >> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It's very hard to know what to make of it when you talk as though you honestly believe that Ball is in favour of the elimination of animal agriculture.
>
>
>
> That's the only thing that makes sense. Maybe you people honestly can't see
>
> how, but to someone who honestly IS in favor of AW over elimination and DOES
>
> appreciate the fact that raising animals for food provides lives of positive
>
> value for billions of animals, it's as clear as can be. ONLY eliminationists
>
> have reason to oppose taking those lives into consideration. That pretty much
>
> exposes him right there. "Dutch" too.The reasons why he would pretend (though
>
> very very poorly) to be a misnomer opponent are obvious too. One is you people
>
> surely are aware that people who honestly oppose the misnomer don't have respect
>
> for those who are in favor of it. So one reason Goo pretends is to try not to be
>
> put in that category. Another is to try to act like he and I should be on the
>
> same side, trying to discredit me with the appearance that even my own "team
>
> mates" are opposed to what I point out being pointed out. And another reason is
>
> to create a bad impression of misnomer opponents by his own behavior since Goo's
>
> portraying himself as one and he lies constantly, and is overly childishly
>
> insulting, and completely inconsiderate of all creatures. He wants to create the
>
> impression that that's how misnomer opponents are. What could be more low-life
>
> than to lie that someone has a felony record for fighting dogs when the person
>
> has never even seen a dog fight, and is opposed to it? That alone makes Goo an
>
> extremely contemptible person. It doesn't seem that way to you because from your
>
> pov anything that supports elimination is ok:
>
>
>
> "We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
>
> DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
>
>
>
> but from any non-eliminationistic pov Goo is about as low as a person can get.
>
> Another thing is that Goo has never been able to give any respectable opposition
>
> to the misnomer himself even when challenged. Goo can't, and no one else can
>
> provide any examples for him. I've challenged you to provide some in the past
>
> when this came up. You couldn't provide any then and I'm confident you can't
>
> provide any now. That means NOTHING exists to make me believe Goo might honestly
>
> favor AW over the misnomer, but a number of things cause me to believe he's in
>
> favor of the misnomer and trying to encourage acceptance of it.

Your posts are so stupid they hurt my head.

George Plimpton
2013-08-23 21:55:17 EST
On 8/19/2013 5:12 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
>
> Eliminationistic

Not a word.


George Plimpton
2013-08-24 19:44:28 EST
On 8/21/2013 11:18 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:37:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:12:47 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>> Goo.
>>
>> Elimination of what?
>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
> way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

Not a quote.


>
> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

Not a quote.


> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.


> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.


> What do you think Prof. Plimpton is referring to?

I was referring to the cessation of livestock husbandry. I thought that
was obvious, *Gloo* Fuckwit David Harrison.

Fuckwit, you are stupid. You have admitted many times to being stupid.
Why do you keep going? What you need to do - what you *ought* to do -
is acknowledge your stupidity, acknowledge that your only purpose here
for 14 years was to be an asshole shit-stirrer, and leave. Why don't
you do it, Fuckwit?

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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