14580e1b   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many   
   >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     That's because you don't so you can't tell me.   
   >>   
   >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.   
   >>   
   >> >>     Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a   
   significant   
   >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.   
   >>   
   >> >No, I don't.   
   >>   
   >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a   
   >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to   
   >> >offer one.   
   >>   
   >>     I did.   
   >   
   >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.   
      
       That's a lie. I even later pointed out some of the specific information it   
   conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.   
      
   >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.   
   >   
   >> You couldn't comprehend.   
   >   
   >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.   
      
       That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie   
   every time you tell it.   
      
   >> You can't figure it out on your own either,   
   >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.   
   >   
   >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".   
      
       Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.   
   . . .   
   >Well, at one point I was talking about the idea of the outcome being   
   >better, but you reject that notion,   
      
       You have to say what you want us to feel it's better FOR for one thing, and   
   also better compared to what.   
      
   >so that's obviously not what you   
   >had in mind.   
   >   
   >As I say, it's your job to specify what you have in mind when you use   
   >the phrase.   
      
       I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)