rupie continues to whiff off - over three weeks now
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: Goo Fuckwit David Harrison and his complete lack of care aboutanimal suffering
Next: Being And Time by Martin Heidegger
From: dh on 18 Aug 2008 09:10 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >Rupert wrote: > >> It is better, other things equal, if more sentient beings live >> reasonably happy and worthwhile lives. > >What's better about it, rupie? It's better that the animals experience the life of positive value than that they don't, even if there is some value to your supposed "state" of pre/non-existence Goo. The concept means, Goober, that REGARDLESS of whether or not there is any value to your supposed "state" of pre/non-existence, it's still better for them to experience the life of positive value than not experience it. Duh Goo, duh.
From: dh on 18 Aug 2008 09:14 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Aug 16, 4:38�pm, the Goober wrote: >> Rupert bullshitted and/or whiffed off: >> > >> > Goober, when I say "It is better that they live that life than that they >> > not live at all...", I am saying that the outcome is better. >> >> What are the criteria, rupie? �What makes the outcome "better", rupie? >> You have to be more specific. �Just repeating "better outcome" is >> circular, clown. > >I've said a few things in this regard. > >It is better, other things equal, if more sentient beings live >reasonably happy and worthwhile lives. It's almost certain that there are a *lot* more livestock doing that than there are wildlife doing it in crop fields. It's also almost certain that there are a lot more wildlife doing it in grazing areas than there are doing it in crop fields...for whatever, if anything, all that is worth to you. It's very *very!* significant to me. >It is better, other things equal, if one particular individual is >better off. The value of life changes many times during our lifetime, and often during the lives of animals as well. >I'm sure more could be said. Lots more, and the Goober will never be able to comprehend much less appreciate a damn bit of it. _________________________________________________________ dh: >>> The main thing to consider in both of course is the life >>> which is experienced Goo: >> No. > LOL! So what do you think is, Goo? Not "the life which is experienced" ��������������������������������������������������������� >Do you want me to try to set forth some kind of complete theory about >the matter? Please try. Maybe that could give people some sort of foundation to work with. Not Goo of course, but less elimination minded people could possibly benefit from it. >You've been using the notion of the outcome being better for a >particular individual. The Goober is all over the place. He goos from insisting that pre-existent "entities" are somehow preventing existing ones from benefitting from their own existence, to insisting we aren't even discussing existing entities. Goo has no clue what to think about any of it, and is very obviously confused and disturbed by the fact that some people do. He apparently wants badly to participate, but he doesn't have what it takes in that little crumb of turd between his ears. >Why don't you try to give a complete definition of that? The reason for that is ineptitude. Goo can't even make an attempt. The "best" this Goober has ever been able to do in that direction is to maunder some goobage about his supposed pre-existent "entities" somehow preventing existing ones from benefitting from their own existence, without ever being able to explain exactly *how* he thinks they manage to pull it off. Goo can only dribble off little fragments of it at a time indicating that the Goober himself doesn't even know what he thinks he's trying to talk about, much less can he put it all together and explain what it is he thinks he thinks. We can only guess at exactly what goos on in the disturbed turd, but we do know it has something to do with assigning incredible significance to the concept of pre-existence: "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo "The topic is not and never has been whether or not existing animals enjoy living." - Goo ""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem" - Goo "We are, and always have been, talking about YOUR belief in unconceived entities, Goo." - Goo "Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist is *NOT* the topic." - Goo "non-existent imaginary livestock" - Goo "These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you, Goo" - Goo "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make them better off than before" - Goo "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was." - Goo "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter its quality of live" - Goo "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo "Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to experience the gain" - Goo "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was" - Goo "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know, we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo "Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote. THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo
From: dh on 19 Aug 2008 11:58 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Goo wondered cluelessly about something easy: >On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:10:39 -0100, dh@. wrote: > >>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >> >>>Rupert wrote: >>> >>>> It is better, other things equal, if more sentient beings live >>>> reasonably happy and worthwhile lives. >>> >>>What's better about it, rupie? >> >> It's better that the animals experience the life of positive >>value than that they don't, even if there is some value to >>your supposed "state" of pre/non-existence Goo. The >>concept means, Goober, that REGARDLESS of whether >>or not there is any value to your supposed "state" of >>pre/non-existence, it's still better for them to experience >>the life of positive value than not experience it. Duh Goo, >>duh. > >What's better about it That they get to experience it Goober. Duh again Goo, duh again. You sure do suck at this Goob, btw.
From: dh on 20 Aug 2008 12:21 On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:58:29 -0100, dh@. wrote: > >>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Goo wondered cluelessly about something easy: >> >>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:10:39 -0100, dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >>>> >>>>>Rupert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It is better, other things equal, if more sentient beings live >>>>>> reasonably happy and worthwhile lives. >>>>> >>>>>What's better about it, rupie? >>>> >>>> It's better that the animals experience the life of positive >>>>value than that they don't, even if there is some value to >>>>your supposed "state" of pre/non-existence Goo. The >>>>concept means, Goober, that REGARDLESS of whether >>>>or not there is any value to your supposed "state" of >>>>pre/non-existence, it's still better for them to experience >>>>the life of positive value than not experience it. Duh Goo, >>>>duh. >>> >>>What's better about it >> >> That they get to experience it Goober. Duh again Goo, >>duh again. You sure do suck at this Goob, btw. > >No, Goo. I've explained that to you countless times. "Getting to >experience life" is not a benefit to animals You have been maniacally making the claim Goober, but as yet you've never been able to explain how you think pre-existent entities prevent them from benefitting, which clearly shows you to be a clueless liar Goo. If you think you can explain it though show that you think you do have a clue, and try to Goo. GO:
From: dh on 24 Aug 2008 11:07
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:21:41 -0100, dh@. wrote: > >>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:58:29 -0100, dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Goo wondered cluelessly about something easy: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:10:39 -0100, dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Goo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Rupert wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is better, other things equal, if more sentient beings live >>>>>>>> reasonably happy and worthwhile lives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What's better about it, rupie? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's better that the animals experience the life of positive >>>>>>value than that they don't, even if there is some value to >>>>>>your supposed "state" of pre/non-existence Goo. The >>>>>>concept means, Goober, that REGARDLESS of whether >>>>>>or not there is any value to your supposed "state" of >>>>>>pre/non-existence, it's still better for them to experience >>>>>>the life of positive value than not experience it. Duh Goo, >>>>>>duh. >>>>> >>>>>What's better about it >>>> >>>> That they get to experience it Goober. Duh again Goo, >>>>duh again. You sure do suck at this Goob, btw. >>> >>>No, Goo. I've explained that to you countless times. "Getting to >>>experience life" is not a benefit to animals >> >> You have been maniacally making the claim Goober, but >>as yet you've never been able to explain how you think >>pre-existent entities prevent them from benefitting, which >>clearly shows you to be a clueless liar Goo. If you think you >>can explain it though show that you think you do have a clue, >>and try to Goo. GO: > >It is correct, Goo. Coming into existence is *NOT* a "benefit" to >animals. It is not "better", for them, to exist rather than not >existing. As yet you've never been able to explain how you think pre-existent entities prevent them from benefitting, which clearly shows you to be a clueless liar Goo. If you think you can explain it though show that you think you do have a clue, and try to Goo. GO: |