XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:23 -0800, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:13:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:25:12 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:13:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:15 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely   
   blatantly:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Why do some people on one hand call for the   
   extinction of a species   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of   
   another?  Are they   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not all equal?" - James Hepler   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you your "animals getting to   
   experience life" nonsense   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was bullshit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic   
   animals should not be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what   
   eliminationists and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to   
   experience life"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bullshit was pure bullshit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    LOL!!!  A guy who asked "are they not all equal"   
   supposedly is opposed to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a   
   stupid Goober, Goo.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LOL!!!!!!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>experience life" story is bullshit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they   
   get to live"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals   
   don't   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       derive the benefit of getting to live   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also   
   Goober, which   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't   
   derive the benefit   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO   
   derive the benefit of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the   
   distinction between   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have   
   any idea?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to   
   live"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gibberish is bullshit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives   
   of positive   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>value and some of negative value, but you people can't   
   appreciate or even   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>acknowledge the difference.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>No moral meaning to that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>    Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly   
   favor decent   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>AW over elimination.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>It has no meaning   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>    Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically   
   equivalent or   
   >>>>>>>>>>superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same   
   lives and   
   >>>>>>>>>>potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much   
   it has is   
   >>>>>>>>something else that exposes you.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*.  Everyone knows it -   
   >>>>>>>including you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY   
   >>>>>>eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives,   
   Goo.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>No, it does not.  It has *NO* meaning at all   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It sure does Goob and ONLY eliminationists are in a position to be   
   unable to   
   >>>>appreciate the fact. And then ONLY the very stupid eliminationists are   
   unable to   
   >>>>recognise the meaning at all. The more intelligent ones would recognise it   
   even   
   >>>>if they were not able to appreciate it, as most likely no eliminationists   
   are or   
   >>>>they would be AW advocates instead of eliminationists, Goo.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>, *Goo* - zero.  Their   
   >>>>>deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally   
   >>>>>troubling.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    LOL!!! It's hilarious in the most pathetic of ways that you find ending   
   >>>>something you consider to be meaningless also morally troubling, Goo.   
   LOL...what   
   >>>>a true Goober you are Goob.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Changing the course of action so that some animal lives   
   >>>>>don't happen is meaningless   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    That part we know you can comprehend Goo, but how it has meaning when   
   they   
   >>>>DO LIVE is one of the aspects you people are unable to appreciate and some   
   of   
   >>>>you can't even comprehend.   
   >>>   
   >>>It doesn't.  "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the   
   >>>animals"   
   >>   
   >>    In contrast to that seemingly idiotic claim, it has the meaning of   
   >>everything they ever experience both good and bad afawk, Goo.   
   >   
   >No   
      
       It obviously necessarily does Goob. What do you think you could possibly   
   gain by stupidly and blatantly lying that it doesn't, Goo?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)