XPost: alt.fan.jai-maharaj, soc.culture.indian, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.rights.promotion,   
   soc.culture.usa   
   From: george@si.not   
      
   On 10/9/2013 11:40 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
      
   > On 10/7/2013 5:43 PM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >> On 10/7/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   >> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   >> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
   >>   
   >>> On 10/4/2013 2:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/4/2013 1:04 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   >>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   >>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 10/3/2013 6:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   >>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   >>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   >>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999   
   >>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost   
   >>>>>>>> again*:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> We could also consider that animals   
   >>>>>>>>> raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop   
   >>>>>>>>> fields   
   >>>>>>>>> are, but   
   >>>>>>>>> instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good   
   >>>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>>> some of   
   >>>>>>>>> them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Meaningless.  Their "experiencing" of life is not morally   
   >>>>>>>> considerable.   
   >>>>>>>> It has no moral importance at all.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> This is what I meant by you having no case, Fuckwit.  While what you   
   >>>>>>>> wrote is true, it is trivial.  It has no bearing on the ethical   
   >>>>>>>> decision   
   >>>>>>>> of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food.  It   
   >>>>>>>> offers no   
   >>>>>>>> clarity or ethical guidance at all.  It's a complete waste of time.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You have no case.  You are not a man.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>      Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed, Fuckwit.   
   >>>>>> *Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.  Merely having   
   >>>>>> some   
   >>>>>> prospect of existing has no moral meaning.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      ONLY because it was raised for food   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Irrelevant, of course.   
   >>>   
   >>>      Less irrelevant than   
   >>   
   >> No, it's just irrelevant - period.   
   >   
   >      What other reason(s)   
      
   Settled:  it is entirely irrelevant that the animal was raised for food.   
     That has nothing to do with the ethics of killing it.   
      
   You agree.   
      
      
   >>>>>> *Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral   
   >>>>> consideration   
   >>   
   >> Right.  "getting to experience life", of course, means "coming into   
   >> existence."  It does *NOT* mean continued existence, *Gloo*.  We're   
   >> comparing coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in your   
   >> shitty way of putting it - with *never* existing.  Coming into existence   
   >> is not a benefit - period.  I've explained it, and you agree.   
   >   
   >      Try to explain how   
      
   Done.   
      
      
   >> *Continuing* to exist, once one already exists, is something else.   
   >> That's why killing the animal deserves a *LOT* of moral consideration,   
   >> *Gloo*.   
   >>   
   >> *Gloo*, you keep trying to play word games with me, and you *KNOW* you   
   >> can't win them.  You can't win them, *Gloo*, because I'm smarter than   
   >> you, I'm more intelligent than you, I'm more articulate than you, and I   
   >> understand language *FAR* above your cracker limitation.  You are   
   >> *SOOOOOO* far below me when it comes to use of language, *Gloo*, that   
   >> you don't have any hope of beating me.   
   >   
   >      You outstupided yours   
      
   You have no hope of beating me, and you have admitted it.   
      
      
   >>>>>> I get this, and you don't.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      If you think you do then   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I do, and you don't.  You've admitted it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You are not a man.   
   >>>   
   >>>      Then try explaining   
   >>   
   >> I have explained exactly how coming into existence - "getting to   
   >> experience life", LOL - is not a benefit, and you have *agreed* with it,   
   >> *Gloo*.  You were *forced* to agree with it, *Gloo* - you had no choice.   
   >   
   >      Then why can't you   
      
   I can, and I have.  You have agreed with it.  You're done.   
      
   You are not a man.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)