XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Goo presented an easy challenge:   
      
   >On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:09:35 -0100, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Goo lied:   
   >>   
   >>>Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo lied:   
   >>   
   >>>>> dh quoted Rupert, then 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".  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".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I did say what is good, I said it's good, other things equal, if a   
   >>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.   
   >>>   
   >>>You can't say what's good about it.   
   >>   
   >>    Try saying what's good about anything Goo. Go:   
   >   
   >You try it, Fuckwit.   
      
       It's good for young calves to enjoy nursing from their mothers.   
   It's good for them to experience the delicious flavor, the warm   
   soothing perfect temperature (especially on a cold day...BETTER   
   than hot chocolate), the feel of the liquid going down their throat   
   and entering their stomach, and to taste their mother in the   
   milk (and probably every time they burp) getting the warm fuzzy   
   feelings of love and safety that it inspires. Etc, Goo.   
      
   >>>You can't even give a fucking clue.   
   >>   
   >>    Try giving a fucking clue that you have some idea how   
   >>anything could be good about anything Goober. Go:   
   >   
   >You try it, Fuckwit.   
      
       It is good for young calves to experience the pleasures of   
   nursing. It's also good FOR YOUNG CALVES to experience   
   lives of positive value, and all the experiences which give it   
   possitive value, you poor clueless Goober.   
      
   >You're even more clueless than His Wobbliness.   
      
       I know a lot more about things that are good for animals   
   than he does apparently Goob, but both of us know WAAAA   
   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY more than you do now or ever   
   will. Of course at this point you've demonstrated that you are   
   completely clueless about how anything could be good for any   
   animal, clearly showing yourself to be on the most ignorant level   
   a person can be on. You are, necessarily, the most clueless a   
   person can be Goober. I challenge you to try rising above the   
   lowest possible level where you currently are stuck, and try to   
   think of some way something could be good for an animal Goo.   
   Go:   
      
   >>>  You're completely incoherent.   
   >>   
   >>    Show that you're not incoherent by explaining how   
   >>anything could be good about something Goo. Go:   
   >>   
   >>>In fact, in absolute terms, there's nothing good about it at all.   
   >>   
   >>    Try explaining how you think anything could be good about   
   >>anything Goo. Go:   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)