Prev: Rupert Mccallum's support for animal farming
Next: Another argument (that rupie predictably fucks up)
From: dh on 30 Jul 2008 08:50
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:55:36 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pipes(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:35:10 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:02:37 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've seen that this greatly challenged and forever
>>>>failing Goober doesn't really know what he thinks he
>>>>thinks, and always fails completely when challenged to
>>>>try explaining how he thinks he disagrees with himself.
>>>
>>>No challenge.
>>
>> That's an extremely blatant lie that no one, most
>>especially you, believes. If you thought you had any
>>clue what you think you think, you would certainly
>>present it instead of cowardly slinking away in shame
>>as you did.
>>
>>>>Let's enjoy Goo's failure by presenting what should be
>>>>an easy challenge, but what we've seen from past
>>>>experience is far beyond the Goober's ability.
>>>
>>>You have never, not once in over nine years, presented a
>>>challenge.
>>
>> That's another extremely blatant lie Goo. No one,
>>including yourself, is too stupid to understand that if you
>>had not been presented with a number of challenges,
>>you would not have been able to snip those challenges.
>>Duh Goober, duh.
>>
>> Now we have a new challenge for you Goo: Try
>>explaining how you think it could possibly help you to
>>blatantly lie about the challenges people make to you,
>>and make a complete idiot of yourself by snipping them
>>and then comically denying their existence. GO:
>>
>>(correct prediction: this is yet another example of a
>>challenge the Goober can not attempt to address,
>>or even acknowledge the existence of.)
>>
>>>> Goo, the challenge is for you to try explaining how
>>>>you think you disagree with yourself about whether
>>>>or not people should give the lives of animals any
>>>>consideration:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>>>whatever" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
>>>>of consideration." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
>>>>moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
>>>>that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
>>>>consideration" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>>>whether or not life is ever a benefit for animals, and even whether
>>>>or not we ever discuss existing animals:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
>>>>a benefit at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
>>>>existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
>>>>*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>>>existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
>>>>aspects of their lives." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>>>>existing entities" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>>>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>>>and a few other ways you think you disagree with yourself in
>>>>general:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>>>existence we know" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
>>>>deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
>>>>consideration." - Goo
>>>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>>
>>>You couldn't - you're too stupid and intellectually limited.
>>
>> Goober the challenges remain, and it is you who are very
>>obviously too intellectually limited to be able to explain how
>>you think you think you disagree with yourself about any of
>>the above examples of your self-disagreement. You are a
>>clueless wanderer in your own mental-bewilderness, Goo.
>
>No challenge

Your denial can do nothing to make the various challenges
go away, nor can it conceal the fact that you are obviously
too inept to meet a single one of them. You obviously feel
that you think you disagree with yourself Goo, but you're
clueless as to how you think you do. You're lost between
your own ears, Goo.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Rupert Mccallum's support for animal farming
Next: Another argument (that rupie predictably fucks up)