af90e018
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,
rec.food.cooking
XPost: alt.gothic
From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com
On Dec 16, 6:55 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 9:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 5:54 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2012 8:47 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> You do know it.
>
> > You certainly appear to be convinced about the matter.
>
> It's a fact, and I am always convinced by facts.
Suppose that X is a Banach space and Y is a normed vector space.
Suppose that F is a family of continuous linear operators from X to Y.
Suppose that, for all x in X, the supremum for all T in F of the norm
of T(x) is finite. Then it follows that the supremum for all T in F of
the norm of T is finite.
This is a fact.
Are you convinced?
You shouldn't be unless you have read the proof, and I very much doubt
that you have.
And, if you are not convinced, then this is an example of you not
always being convinced by facts.
Your belief that I know that David Harrison doesn't care about animal
welfare in the least is completely without rational foundation.
If you only thought about the matter for a while, you should be able
to realize this.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
