On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:24:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:48:34 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 2008, Goo lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:10:45 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 20 May 2008, the Goober wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why did it take so long, Goo?
>>>>
>>>> Probably perturbations in the flux of spacetime in this region
Goober.
>>>>
>>>>>Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire
"take"
>>>>>on the issue of animal "rights" is bull****?
>>>>
>>>> How do you think pointing out the fact that it wouldn't provide
>>>>better lives, longer lives, more lives or ANY lives--much less provide
>>>>"rights"--for domestic animals is bull**** Goob, do you have any idea?
>>>>
>>>>>There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have repeatedly indicated that you aren't aware of a
single
>>>>one of them, Goo. If you think you are finally aware of any and
capable
>>>>of explaining it/them, I challenge you to try doing so now. GO:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off
>>>>in a most inept and cowardly way)
>>>
>>>No, Goo. *I* have elaborated logical and correct opposition to "ar".
>>
>> As I correctly predicted Goober you can not do it. You can't
>>now, you never could, and you will never be able to. You have
>>completely failed the challenge. The challenge still stands though
>>Goo, so try. We can't say try again because as I predicted you
>>wussed off in a most inept and cowardly way without trying at
>>all, so try doing it now Goo:
>>
>>
>>(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to
>>present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
>
>No, Goo. You did not "predict" anything,
In contrast to that lie Goo, I correctly predicted your complete
ineptitude as far as being able to provide any opposition to the
misnomer. Every time I make that prediction I'm right Goober, each
and every time. Recently I've made two correct predictions which
YOU fulfilled by being so inept. The two correct predictions are:
(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off
in a most inept and cowardly way)
(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to
present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
>*JUST* as you do not "point out"
That's another lie Goo, and pointing out that it's a lie reveals
the lie itself. You sure are a stupid Goober.
In contrast to your inability to oppose elimination Goob I
will now point out--with examples--that you try to promote
its acceptance:
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals" - Goo
"if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live" - Goo
"not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." -
Goo
"it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>anything and do not "challenge".
That's another lie of course, since it's one of my challenges
which has led you to lie about all of this. Here are two more
challenges which will kick your ass to the extent that you won't
even be able to attempt them, followed by another correct
prediction of your imminent cowardly failure to attempt. The two
challenges:
1. Try to explain how you think you think you might disagree
with yourself about any of your above quotes.
2. Try to explain any of your supposed opposition(s) to the
elimination objective, or any similar aspects of the misnomer.
(correct prediction: Goo will again take the coward's way
by wussing out entirely, awareness of his own incredible
ineptitude preventing him from making any attempt to
meet either--much less both--of these two challenges)
|
