Prev: The same "pre-existence" challenge for Goo to fail again.
Next: Goo and ethical meat eating
From: dh on 12 Aug 2008 08:43
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo ignorantly(?) asked:

>With thanks to Derek.
>
> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
> have had." - dh 5 Aug 1999
> http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>
>So?

So Goober, you *still* need to expain why it would be
better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
welfare and lives of positive value for billions of livestock
animals instead. Just as you couldn't do it 9 years ago
Goo, you still can't do it today. I challenge you to try
doing it Goob. GO:

(Prediction: The Goober can not do it, nor can
anyone else.)
From: Dutch on 12 Aug 2008 18:48
dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo ignorantly(?) asked:
>
>> With thanks to Derek.
>>
>> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
>> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
>> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
>> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
>> have had." - dh 5 Aug 1999
>> http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>>
>> So?
>
> So Goober, you *still* need to expain why it would be
> better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
> to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
> welfare and lives of positive value for billions of livestock
> animals instead. Just as you couldn't do it 9 years ago
> Goo, you still can't do it today. I challenge you to try
> doing it Goob. GO:
>
> (Prediction: The Goober can not do it, nor can
> anyone else.)

Jonathan Ball does not believe that "it would be
better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
welfare and lives of positive value for billions of
livestock animals instead", so why would he need to
explain it? It's incredible that you think he does.

Derek believes it though, ask him.
From: Derek on 12 Aug 2008 19:10
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:48:30 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo ignorantly(?) asked:
>>
>>> With thanks to Derek.
>>>
>>> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
>>> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
>>> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
>>> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
>>> have had." - dh 5 Aug 1999
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> So Goober, you *still* need to expain why it would be
>> better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
>> to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
>> welfare and lives of positive value for billions of livestock
>> animals instead. Just as you couldn't do it 9 years ago
>> Goo, you still can't do it today. I challenge you to try
>> doing it Goob. GO:
>>
>> (Prediction: The Goober can not do it, nor can
>> anyone else.)
>
>Jonathan Ball does not believe that "it would be
>better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
>to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
>welfare and lives of positive value for billions of
>livestock animals instead", so why would he need to
>explain it? It's incredible that you think he does.
>
>Derek believes it though, ask him.

Now, what leads you to believe I would want to waste
my time discussing the finer points of my moral principles
with an inebriated old soak like Harrison who throws
half a dozens cans of booze down his neck every night?
When was the last time you made any sense out of a
boozer? Take a look at my exchanges with him and you'll
note that I invariably allow him the last slurred word.
From: Dutch on 12 Aug 2008 19:29
Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:48:30 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo ignorantly(?) asked:
>>>
>>>> With thanks to Derek.
>>>>
>>>> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
>>>> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
>>>> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
>>>> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
>>>> have had." - dh 5 Aug 1999
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>> So Goober, you *still* need to expain why it would be
>>> better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
>>> to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
>>> welfare and lives of positive value for billions of livestock
>>> animals instead. Just as you couldn't do it 9 years ago
>>> Goo, you still can't do it today. I challenge you to try
>>> doing it Goob. GO:
>>>
>>> (Prediction: The Goober can not do it, nor can
>>> anyone else.)
>> Jonathan Ball does not believe that "it would be
>> better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
>> to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
>> welfare and lives of positive value for billions of
>> livestock animals instead", so why would he need to
>> explain it? It's incredible that you think he does.
>>
>> Derek believes it though, ask him.
>
> Now, what leads you to believe I would want to waste
> my time discussing the finer points of my moral principles
> with an inebriated old soak like Harrison who throws
> half a dozens cans of booze down his neck every night?
> When was the last time you made any sense out of a
> boozer? Take a look at my exchanges with him and you'll
> note that I invariably allow him the last slurred word.

My question was to *him*, why is he asking Jonathan
rather than someone who actually believes it. I don't
think that discussing anything with him would be a
good use of *your* time.
From: dh on 13 Aug 2008 09:36
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo ignorantly(?) asked:
>>
>>> With thanks to Derek.
>>>
>>> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
>>> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
>>> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
>>> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
>>> have had." - dh 5 Aug 1999
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> So Goober, you *still* need to expain why it would be
>> better to eliminate animal farming and force everyone
>> to become vegan, than it would be to provide decent
>> welfare and lives of positive value for billions of livestock
>> animals instead. Just as you couldn't do it 9 years ago
>> Goo, you still can't do it today. I challenge you to try
>> doing it Goob. GO:
>>
>> (Prediction: The Goober can not do it, nor can
>> anyone else.)

>So,

So I predicted you could not do it, and you proved that
I was correct again as you always do and always will.

>you whiffed off, again.

Eliminationists want to make the change Goober, and
what I did was to again challenge you to explain WHY you
think we should make that particular and very extreme change
instead of providing decent AW. You can only insist that we
should Goob, but none of you can explain why.

>Your choice, "decent animal welfare vs. elimination", is phony. You are
>sleazily collapsing two choices into one

No Goo. I'm challenging you to explain why you think people
should believe that elimination would be better than providing
decent lives for billions of animals. So far none of you have
been able to explain, even though I'm sure during the years I've
been challenging you to there have been millions and millions of
dollars donated to eliminationist organizations. What percentage
of that money do you think was contributed by people who are
really in favor of elimination and not decent welfare, Goo?

>, Goo. The first choice, Goo, is "should animals exist, or not?".

Your answer has always been that they should not. If you
now want to pretend you believe they should, then it would
be great fun to see you try giving some sort of explanation.
Try to explain it Goo. GO:

(Prediction: the Goober amusingly can't explain why they
should not be raised, nor why they should be. Goo can not
explain in any way, and will wuss entirely from the challenge.)

>If and only if that is answered
>affirmatively, then there is a second choice: "should animals be
>provided 'decent' lives, or not?"

That depends on what we want to be ourselves Goo.
People like yourself who are completely inconsiderate,
want to be completely inconsiderate and not care about
what's in it for the animals. Totally different people such
as myself do care what's in it for the animals. We can
be opposed to what we see as horrible conditions like
battery cages for reasons you're not even aware of,
while at the same time being in favor of cage free
farming even though again we're aware of down sides
that you aren't aware of. Complete inconsiderates like
yourself can't appreciate the topic, much less more
detailed things about it. It's no surprise that you can't
get as far as your more honest and more considerate
eliminationist brother Rupert, Goo. You're so much
more shallow than he is that you can't even get a
glimpse, much less could you ever appreciate the
whole picture. He sux at it too Goo, but just not as
consistently and purely as you do, which is why he's
wishywashy about it. My guess is that congnitive
dissonance will keep him leaning toward your
elimination side though Goober. His only other option
is to acknowledge what a fool he was for ever putting
faith in elimination, and chances of that happening
are pretty slim even if it would end up taking a great
weight off his brain, remove mental restrictions which
would allow him to consider countless more options
that could actually help billions of animals in the future,
and make him feel better in general if he were ever
to do so.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The same "pre-existence" challenge for Goo to fail again.
Next: Goo and ethical meat eating