XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:11:50 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:49:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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???   
   >   
   >No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo:   
   >   
   >        The animals that will be raised for us to eat   
   >        are more than just "nothing", because they   
   >        *will* be born unless something stops their   
   >        lives from happening. Since that is the case,   
   >        if something stops their lives from happening,   
   >        whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"   
   >        them of the life they otherwise would have had.   
   >        Fuckwit - 12/09/1999   
   >   
   >You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would   
   >experience a loss, Fuckwit, because you considered them to be "nothing".   
   > But it's a lie, Fuckwit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing."   
      
       They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more   
   than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would   
   not   
   be confused by it. You stupid Goober.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)