XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:24:37 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:01:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:17:43 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:00:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, sorry, Fuckwit, that just won't do.  You said they are "more than   
   >>>just '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.   
   >   
   >you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs   
   >based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.   
      
       The way I suggested they are more than just nothing is that they are a   
   concept Goo. Whether or not any beings have multiple lives, and if they do what   
   that involves is something none of us can know Goob, and I'm aware of the fact   
   even if you're not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)