9c44de5f
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,
rec.food.cooking
XPost: alt.gothic
From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com
On Dec 15, 6:30 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that
> >>>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive
> >>>>> value" which conveys any useful information.
>
> >>>> I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're
not
> >>>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that
you
> >>>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so
stupid
> >>>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?
>
> >>> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker
> >>> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if
> >>> it's not precisely defined.
>
> >> LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I
have to
> >> define mine...LOL!!!
>
> > This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you
> > using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be
> > taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least
> > some idea of what it means. In the case of the term "life of positive
> > value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of
> > what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,
> > unlike your previous attempts.
>
> You already know that he cannot define the terms, except tautologically.
> You also know that *I* have told you what he really means by it: he
> means existence for livestock animals. You know he doesn't care about
> the welfare or quality of life of livestock animals at all, as I have
> demonstrated many times:
>
> It's not out of consideration for porcupines
> that we don't raise them for food. It's because
> they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
> don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
> either, but because they're fairly easy to
> raise.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>
> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
> because I don't care about them at all, but I
> would just ignore their suffering.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
> cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
> the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
> But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
> also....
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>
> I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> to make the effort.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - doesn't care about "decent lives of
> possitive [sic] value", or animal welfare, in the least. He only cares
> that they exist, so he can consume them. You know this. You *know*,
> without any doubt, that his ignorant cracker bullshit about "decent
> lives" is just a shitty attempt at a smokescreen that has been dissipated.
I don't know without any doubt that he doesn't care about animal
welfare in the least. I would say he probably doesn't care about it
enough to inflict any significant inconvenience on himself for the
sake of it. The same is probably true of quite a lot of people. But
that doesn't have any bearing on the merits of his argument, saying
that his argument should be rejected because he personally can't be
bothered taking any significant steps for the sake of animal welfare
would be an ad hominem fallacy.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
