3881c446   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On Dec 16, 5:36 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > On 12/16/2012 1:53 AM, Rupert wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > You do know it.  I've proved it to you.   
   >   
      
   No, I don't know it. I'm not aware of your having proved it.   
      
   > > that doesn't have any bearing on the merits of his argument,   
   >   
   > He doesn't have an argument, and we weren't talking about his lack of   
   > one.  What we were talking about was his smokescreen - his empty   
   > bullshit about "decent lives of possitive [sic] value", and how all that   
   > means is existence for the animals he wants to consume.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)