XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:59:10 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   .   
   >On 8/11/2015 12:46 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >> On 8/11/2015 12:42 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>> _________________________________________________________   
   >>>>>>> There might not be any sort of God associated with this planet. If   
   >>>>>>> not, then   
   >>>>>>> "he" isn't going to provide any evidence, regardless of what   
   >>>>>>> evidence there is,   
   >>>>>>> and that people invent.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> There might BE a God associated with this planet. If so he is   
   >>>>>>> OBVIOUSLY not   
   >>>>>>> ready to provide verifiable evidence of his existence, even if he   
   >>>>>>> did so a   
   >>>>>>> number of times in the past in addition to providing however much   
   >>>>>>> evidence that   
   >>>>>>> can not be verified.   
   >>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Nonsense.  My cat sheds all over the house.  What more evidence do you   
   >>>>>> need of my cat's existence?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Do you have any idea how you'd like to pretend that has anything   
   >>>>> to do with   
   >>>>> what you're trying to talk about?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What reason do you have to believe that my cat is not a god?  In what   
   >>>> way does it violate the parameters you have established for what is and   
   >>>> is not a god?   
   >>>   
   >>>      One of the most basic is that I don't believe a God could be   
   >>> native to a   
   >>> planet he's God of. There are of course others, but that one is plenty   
   >>> good   
   >>> enough. You people STILL have nothing.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Ah.  So my cat would then be god of, say, Mars.   
   >   
   >Here are some other crackpot things this fuckwit with whom you're   
   >arguing has said in the past, on a different topic (animal "rights").   
   >These should give you a good idea of just how shabby an intellect you're   
   >trying to engage:   
   >   
   >         It's not out of consideration for porcupines   
   >         that we don't raise them for food. It's because   
   >         they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We   
   >         don't raise cattle out of consideration for them   
   >         either, but because they're fairly easy to   
   >         raise.   
   >   
   >         I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought   
   >         that all of the animals I eat had terrible   
   >         lives, I would still eat meat. That is not   
   >         because I don't care about them at all, but I   
   >         would just ignore their suffering.   
   >   
   >         I would eat animals even if I thought that it was   
   >         cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from   
   >         the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.   
   >         But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals   
   >         also....   
   >   
   >         What I'm saying is unfair for the [nonexistent]   
   >         animals that *could* get to live, is for people   
   >         not to consider the fact that they are only keeping   
   >         these animals from being killed, by keeping   
   >         them from getting to live at all.   
   >   
   >         Then I guess raising billions of animals for   
   >         food provides billions of beings with a place in   
   >         eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least   
   >         some of it.   
   >   
   >         Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be   
   >         born if nothing prevents that from happening,   
   >         that would experience the loss if their lives   
   >         are prevented.   
   >   
   >The fuckwit fancies himself an opponent of animal "rights",   
      
       Here Goo is trying to encourage the idea that those people better referred   
   to as eliminationists actually want to provide rights for domestic animals,   
   when   
   in fact all they want is to ELIMINATE ALL domestic animals. The term he used is   
   a horribly gross misnomer, and there is a huge difference between the misnomer   
   and decent animal welfare. PeTA btw is an ELIMINATIONIST organization, NOT an   
   AW   
   organization.   
      
   >but his opposition to it is entirely incoherent   
      
       Goo's "opposition" supports the misnomer entirely:   
      
   "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in   
   other words - if humans kill animals they don't need   
   to kill, i.e. not in self defense." - Goo   
      
   "Rights are not given.  Rights exist." - Goo   
      
   ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo   
      
   "Causing the animals to exist is not "contributing to their lives."" - Goo   
      
   "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral   
   consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing   
   of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral   
   consideration, and gets it." - Goo   
      
   ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   their deaths" - Goo   
      
   "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"   
   (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for   
   killing them." - Goo   
      
   "When considering your food choices ethically, assign   
   ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to   
   eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo   
      
   "Fact:  IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then   
   having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does   
   not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo   
      
   "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to   
   experience life" deserves no consideration when asking   
   whether or not it is moral to kill them.  Zero." - Goo   
      
   "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal   
   ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the   
   moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo   
      
   "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude   
   than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo   
      
   "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing   
   of the animals erases all of it." - Goo   
      
   "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   its quality of live" - Goo   
      
   "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way   
   at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - 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   
      
   "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to   
   experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration   
   whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the   
   breeding of livestock" - Goo   
      
   "they do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus never   
   existing." - Goo   
      
   "Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage   
   to an entity, compared with never existing." - Goo   
      
   "It is not to my son's advantage to have been born versus never existing" - Goo   
      
   "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo   
      
   "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared   
   with never existing." - Goo   
      
   "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus   
   never existing" - Goo   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)