XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:54:21 -0700, Lord Infomouse    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/24/2012 2:30 PM, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>      They do Goob, even though they're not aware of the position they're in.   
   >> LOL...and that particular fact is a very significant part OF their pov Goo.   
   If   
   >> they were aware of their own position it would be a lot different but   
   they're   
   >> not and you couldn't make them aware of it even if you tried, Goober.   
   >>   
   >>>> It's just very surprising that he would admit he doesn't care about the   
   animals.   
   >>>> I expect him to try lying that he actually does at some point, but then   
   again he   
   >>>> might be afraid to say anything more about it at all. No doubt he doesn't   
   want   
   >>>> to and that's why you being his brother have taken over for his lame ass.   
   You   
   >>>> people are pathetic Goob...amusing, but pathetic.   
   >   
   >Part of the problem that I see is that you have made Goober and Rupert   
   >both your enemies,   
      
       Rupert is honest about being an eliminationist, and since I encourage   
   people   
   to appreciate the lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals that makes   
   him automatically my enemy. Goo claims to favor decent AW over elimination, yet   
   maniacally opposes the idea of appreciating when AW regulations or anything   
   else   
   successfully result in lives of positive value for livestock animals. He's got   
   to be lying about something there too, and of course from my position it seems   
   clear that he's lying about favoring decent AW over elimination. That means he   
   and Rupert are on the side of elimination, which is necessarily the enemy of   
   appreciating life for livestock animals.   
      
   >where Rupert is clearly much smarter than Goober and   
   >more adept at argument.   
      
       Rupert claims that he doesn't "believe the distinction between "lives of   
   positive value" and "lives of negative value" means anything." We discussed   
   that   
   very thing in grade school in PA in regards to slavery in the United States. We   
   also understood that each person decides for himself or herself what they   
   considier to be a "good" life, and that sometimes life still has positive value   
   to beings even when it's not what we might consider to be actually "good". None   
   of us had any problem with such aspects of existence in grade school, yet   
   Rupert   
   who claims to have a PhD also claims that he can't comprehend. I believe he can   
   comprehend and is lying, but does that make it any better? He would lie about   
   it   
   because appreciating their lives works against the elimination objective he has   
   put his faith in for years, so cognitive dissonance works against him being   
   able   
   to comprehend, or at least appreciate even if he can sort comprehend. Either   
   way, he's not all that smart and if he truly can't comprehend then he's truly   
   stupid, not smart.   
      
       Goo is stupid and makes stupid claims he can't back up, and tells blatant   
   lies somehow feeling ethically superior to other people for telling them.   
      
   >Goober likes to declare his opinion as fact and   
   >a lot of people know that he is wrong.   
      
       He sure does. And Goo often/usually can't even attempt to pretend to back   
   up   
   his stupid claims.   
      
   >Rupert is just afraid to commit   
   >to any term or phrase that hasn't been laid out well.   
      
       He wants people to think that's it, but it's not. If that were the only   
   thing about it he'd try to find a definition he likes, as the Goober does with   
   "benefit". Instead he acts like because he doesn't like my definition of   
   benefit, I haven't given one that conveys any information and sometimes he even   
   lies more blatantly than that claiming I've never given one at all. The   
   definition I've given him and he's lied about is that a life of positive value   
   for an individual is one that doesn't involve enough suffering both mental   
   and/or physical to make it of negative value. That conveys the information that   
   unless there is a significant amount of suffering life has positive value, but   
   if there's enough suffering it has negative value. It also leaves room for the   
   distinction between lives of positive value that are not actually good, and   
   those which actually are. One reason I believe Rupert is lying when he says he   
   can't comprehend a distinction is that he's suggested that he can:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   "I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such   
   that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do   
   rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live   
   in their place." - Rupert   
      
   "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be   
   a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather   
   than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live   
   in their place." - Rupert   
      
   "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms   
   have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life   
   than that they not live at all" - Rupert   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
      
   Are we supposed to believe that since writing those statements he has somehow   
   unlearned? If so, how could he unlearn? It's more likely he's now lying, than   
   that he actually did somehow unlearn, imo. Unless of course he was lying when   
   he   
   made the statements instead of lying now, but that seems less likely to me.   
   Note   
   that Goo's boy "Dutch" for a while also claimed to have some appreciation:   
      
   _________________________________________________________   
   "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock   
   animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"   
      
   "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,   
   I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"   
      
   "I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor   
   when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"   
      
   "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life   
   has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"   
      
   "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our   
   lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"   
      
   "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience   
   life." - Dutch   
      
   "I appreciate lives of positive value for livestock that   
   exist or will exist"- "Dutch"   
      
   "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL   
   exist under present rules" - "Dutch"   
      
   "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are   
   as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
      
   But now "Dutch" acts like he unlearned like Rupert, and both of them have been   
   strongly influenced by the Goober. Could Goo somehow have caused them to   
   unlearn? "Dutch" said considering the lives of the animals he now claims to eat   
   made him feel "dirty". Note also that when "Dutch" first began posting he was   
   honest about the fact that he was an eliminationist and a veg*n. I believe he   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)