XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:36:37 -0700, Lord Infomouse    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/4/2012 6:03 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >> On Dec 3, 11:56 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>      That guy, claiming to have a PhD in math, is also an eliminationist or   
   >>> "animal rights" addict. That doesn't mean he's in favor of "rights" for   
   domestic   
   >>> animals, or better lives for domestic animals, but NO domestic animals.   
   Yet he   
   >>> also claims:   
   >>>   
   >>> "I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and   
   >>> "lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert   
   >>>   
   >>> So, since he wants to see the elimination of domestic animals, and doesn't   
   >>> believe the distinction....means anything, does that mean he's in favor of   
   the   
   >>> elimination of all life on the planet? If not, how could he make a   
   distinction   
   >>> between which should and which should not be eliminated, and why? Also, how   
   >>> could a guy who is fool enough to be in that position possibly obtain a   
   PhD in   
   >>> something a lot more complicated and with a lot more values to consider???   
   . . .   
   >The reason I am against the doubt of Ph.D. claims is that people go into   
   >it with not a shred of evidence and make a fuzzy judgement based on   
   >their view of the person.   
      
       As I  pointed out above he can't comprehend a simple concept like the value   
   of life. We discussed it in grade school regarding slavery in Amarica and no   
   one   
   in my class had any problem with it, yet Rupert doesn't think it means   
   anything.   
   How could a guy who can't comprehend a simple aspect of life that we had no   
   problem with in grade school obtain a PhD in something a lot more complicated?   
   From my pov it seems more likely than not that he would lie about something   
   like   
   that, and also more likely than not that a person with his mental limitations   
   could not obtain a PhD. Then there's also the FACT that his brother Goo has   
   lied   
   about having a PhD twice and lied about having been a Marine once that I'm   
   aware   
   of, meaning he has undoubtedly lied about them a number of more times than   
   that.   
   I don't believe Rupert would be bothered in the least by lying about this, and   
   certainly don't believe such a thing is in any way below him.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)