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 10/13/2013 2:42 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 10/10/2013 12:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 10/10/2013 12:02 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 10/9/2013 11:54 AM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>      You admit   
   >>   
   >> *YOU* are the one admitting things around here, *Gloo*.  You admit I   
   >> beat you - I beat you like a drum.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>      Try to present   
   >>   
   >> Done.   
   >>   
   >> You are not a man.  You admit it.   
   >   
   >      That's such a blatant lie   
      
   No, it's not a lie.  You are not a man, and you *have* admitted it.  You   
   are done - you were done before you started - and you've admitted that, too.   
      
   You're done.  You are not a man.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)