bbcabec0   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch  wrote:   
   >> Rupert wrote:   
   >> > So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?   
   >>   
   >> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it   
   >> sounds so he can't say he believes it.   
   >>   
   >> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their   
   >> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".   
   >>   
   >> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that   
   >> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.   
   >   
   >It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from   
   >claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.   
      
       It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard   
   trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did   
   believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.   
   Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the   
   possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains:   
   Why   
   is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?   
   How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)