XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:   
      
   >dh pointed out:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Rupert pointed out:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:   
   >>   
   >>>> dh pointed out:   
   >   
   >No "pointing out".   
      
       LOL! What a stupid Goober!!!   
      
   >>>>> "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,   
   >   
   >You didn't say what makes it good.   
      
       Whether he did or not you've shown that you can't comprehend   
   what makes it good for anything, Goo.   
      
   >>> I said it's good, other things equal, if a   
   >>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.   
   >>   
   >>     It's pretty obvious by itself.   
   >   
   >No.  No, it sure isn't.   
      
       Goo, what do you think you would gain if you could get me to   
   believe you really are that stupid, do you have any idea? Tell me   
   Goober: WHAT do you think you would gain???   
      
   >Neither he nor you can make even a tiny bit of   
   >progress saying what's good about a being existing,   
      
       When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because   
   we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo. It has to   
   do with easy definitions of words and some simple math like:   
   more = more, but even though it's all easy you've shown that you're   
   too stupid to have the first clue about any of it. Maybe you really are   
   Goo as you insist, so if you really are too stupid to comprehend what   
   do you think you could gaing by having people continue to explain?   
   Could you really be too stupid to understand that you can't understand   
   things you're too stupid to understand? It's certainly beginning to look   
   like you are.   
      
   >versus never existing.   
      
       You claim to be too stupid to understand at all Goo.   
      
   >>> I don't have to explain why that's the case.   
   >   
   >Yes, you most certainly do.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> Explanation has to stop   
   >>> somewhere.   
   >   
   >Not there.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>     Goo never tries to explain,   
   >   
   >Goo always explains:  lucidly, factually, comprehensively.   
      
       Then try explaining how you think pre-existence   
   prevents existing things from benefitting from their   
   existence Goo. Go:   
      
   >>> I will do some reading   
   >>   
   >>     Have some first hand observation and maybe some   
   >> interaction.   
   >   
   >Haw haw haw!  Like you did, at the petting zoo   
      
       I've had it with lots of things Goo, including some   
   animals I raised, killed and ate. In contrast to that:   
   You have had it with none, never will, and can't   
   even comprehend the idea.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)