XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Goo lied about proof though there isn't even any evidence:   
      
   >On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:31:03 -0100, dh@. pointed out:   
   >   
   >>"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food   
   >>on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live   
   >>that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert   
   >>   
   >>    Excellent point,   
      
   >No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown   
   >prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better".   
      
       Even if he can't explain it the point remains solid, Goo.   
      
   >It   
   >just doesn't mean anything as he has used it.  He can't say what is   
   >"good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".   
      
       What it means Goober, is that it's better for some animals to   
   experience their lives than it would be for them not to even if   
   there is some positive value to any supposed "state" of   
   pre-existence, and most especially if there is none.   
      
   >Note, Goo, that rupie is *NOT* agreeing with you.   
      
       He's new to the concept, Goo. I've been familiar with it   
   for over 20 years, but it's new to him. You can't comprehend   
   it at all Goober, so any ideas you might have on the topic   
   are necessarily the most ignorant and stupid, since you are   
   completely stupid and ignorant in regards to the fact itself.   
      
   >You insist, stupidly   
   >and irrationally and *WRONGLY*, that it is "better for the animals" that   
   >they exist.  It is not; it is proved that it is not; that it *cannot* be.   
      
       It has only been claimed by you Goober, with absolutely   
   nothing to back it up. You have never been able to explain,   
   nor will you ever be, exactly how you believe pre-existent   
   entities or/and the supposed pre-existent "state" prevent   
   existing animals from benefitting from their existence. You   
   can't even explain how you think you think the prevention   
   takes place, Goo. If you really think you think "it is proved   
   that it is not; that it *cannot* be", then try providing evidence   
   of that having been proved. Go:   
      
   (Correct prediction: Contrary to his boasting of it having   
   been done, the Goober will be unable to present any   
   example(s) of what it is he thinks he's trying to talkd about.)   
      
   >>and simply by pointing that fact out you have   
   >>kicked the Goos' collective asses. They have no argument against   
   >>it, and any attempt they make trying to present one will be at "best"   
   >>amusing absurdity. Congratulations on kicking the Goobers' asses!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)