| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
 |
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 4:17 pm, dh@. wrote:
I was
actually aware that it is not necessary to declare that "pre-
existence" is nonsense in order to refute the Logic of the Larder.
However, it's not an error to declare that "pre-existence" is
nonsense, it most definitely is incoherent nonsense.
The Hindus will be disappointed. They might want you to explain
exactly how you found that bit of information out though, before they
go trying to change the beliefs they've held for thousands of years.
How did you find out, btw?
By studying basic logic.
|
Nothing humans have learned could have taught them what you
claim to think you found out. At best, you're fooling yourself. At worst
you're being dishonest with us, and possibly with yourself (that of
course would only be if you understand that you couldn't possibly
know what you claim to have learned).
| Quote: | It is true that
we might conceivably be immortal souls who float about in the ether
and become "attached" to biological organisms when those organisms
come into existence. (Although we shouldn't give any credence to such
a possibility when making an argument in practical ethics with real-
life applications, because there's absolutely no evidence for such a
possibility.)
A person can feel that it's better for a being to experience its
life than for it not to,
Not better for the being, no.
|
Yes better for the being. Even if there is a pre-existent state that
provides a higher quality of existence than this one, it could still be
better for beings to experience life here on Earth too.
| Quote: | regardless of whether or not there's any
positive value to the Goober's supposed "state" of pre-existence.
I feel that way about a number of beings, in fact. You have acted
as if you do too, maybe, sometimes, you think, maybe, some things,
maybe, sometimes, maybe...
However, this still wouldn't alter the fact that it's
incoherent nonsense to talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-
existent entity". An entity can't exist before it exists.
That's another subject altogether. Just because Goo insists that
pre-existent entities somehow prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence doesn't mean you have to believe him.
None of Ball's babbling has ever influenced my views about anything.
|
They've influenced mine. Since he first started posting I've been
impressed at how dishonest, inconsiderate, and stupid a person
can make a point of presenting himself as being.
| Quote: | One
huge reason to suspect the Goober might be wrong in that, is his
complete inability to explain exactly how he thinks they manage to
do it. On the rare occasions when Goo makes some attemple to
explain what he thinks he's trying to talk about, it ALWAYS gets
down to pre-existent entities:
"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - 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
This is a silly way to argue about the matter.
|
Which matter? We have the issue itself, then Goo's lies
about it, and your apparent disagreement with yourself
about it.
| Quote: | We should
instead speak of a state which our soul is in before our body comes
into existence, or a soul existing prior to the existence of the body
to which it eventually becomes attached.
That's a different subject and you've already proclaimed that
"it most definitely is incoherent nonsense."
No, you misunderstand me.
|
I simply pasted a quote.
| Quote: | What I'm proclaiming to be incoherent
nonsense is the idea of a being existing before it exists.
What I'm talking about above is not incoherent nonsense, it's just
completely lacking in rational foundation.
|
Beings can have lives of positive value regardless of whether or
not there's a pre/post-existent state or not.
| Quote: | If David Harrison is allowed to make conjectures that there are souls
floating about in the ether which become attached to bodies
I don't. I consider the possibility of multiple lives but don't have
a true belief either way about it, and for some reason(s) people
feel it's important to lie about that claiming I have chosen to believe
in the way they actually think it's less likely that I do believe. You for
example almost certainly feel it's less likely that I do believe what you
just got through accusing me of, so in order to attempt to insult me
you accuse me of holding beliefs you know I will resent being accused
of holding because I don't hold them. It's very dishonest of you, and
far more dishonest than I had expected out of you, but even when I've
learned to expect very little from someone I still often tend to overestimate
them as in this example with you.
It's not dishonesty. I apologise if I have inadvertantly
misinterpreted you; it's just that that's the only coherent way to
make sense of it being a "benefit" to an animal that its body is
brought into existence.
|
There has to be more to it than just the body imo, since I never got
the impression that stillborns can benefit from anything.
| Quote: | So I attribute that position to you by the principle of charity.
|
I don't consider it charity for a person to apologise for misrepresenting
someone. I consider it to be a most basic form of human consideration.
| Quote: | As for what I actually do believe (we'll see...maybe this will help
you come up with even more insulting lies about me ;Ĵ) : I believe
that many beings do have lives of positive which it's better for them
to experience than not to, REGARDLESS of whether or not there
is a pre-existent state.
As discussed many times, you can't say it's better for the being
because you're not comparing two outcomes in which the being exists,
|
By considering that the Goober's supposed pre-existent state might
have some positive value I certainly am.
| Quote: | you're comparing one in which the being exists and one in which the
being doesn't.
|
It would be that much more "better" if there is no pre-existent state.
That should be one of the most basic observations of anyone trying
to think it all through. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Goo lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:17:54 -0100, dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge.
I am sure you are right that I ought to read Salt's essay.
_________________________________________________________
Logic of the Larder
by Henry S. Salt
Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914
It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is better for them to live and
to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit or pastime, when their life
is a fairly happy one.
[...]
Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life." But what is the moral to
be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and destroying life, to
pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more of it! But rather that we
should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves, and strive as far as
possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the larder is the very negation of
a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals is he whose larder is
fullest of them:
He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.
It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any truth in such an
argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions, and face the inevitable
conclusion.
[...]
[2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest
cattle would be the eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be
commended. And while, heretofore, the motive has not been for the sake
of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian convictions should spread
much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically incompatible)
blend with the love of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism.
With deeper insight, new and higher motives may replace or supplement
old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient practices." - Dr. Stanton Coit.
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Which conclusively shows that animals do not "benefit" or "get something
from the arrangement" from being brought into existence.
|
LOL!!! It doesn't show anything of the kind Goo, you idiot. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Goo lied:
| Quote: | Rupert pointed out:
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
|
LOL! That's yet another blatant lie which proves his point Goober.
You know all those blatant lies I keep pointing out that you're
outstupiding yourself with, and that people have been laughing at
you for for years and years...well that's what he's referring to, Goo.
Like this one for example. It's a classic.
| Quote: | My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't.
|
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
| Quote: | I have always ridiculed that.
|
"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
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
| Quote: | When I talk about "pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes,
|
Notice that in this Goobal quote:
"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
you put pre-existence in quotes, but not state. This shows
us some things that you subconsciously revealed (again) by
doing it that way.
1. You believe in some sort of pre-existence state, otherwise
you would have put state in quotes as well.
2. Since you obviously believe in it, you're being dishonest
when you say you don't.
3. You don't think things through. You're trying to make it
appear that you put pre-existence in quotes because it's
my belief not yours, when pre-existence is an integral part
of YOUR supposed argument, but is completely insignificant
in regards to the facts I point out that you're futilely trying to
argue against.
| Quote: | to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
|
Goober, beings can and do benefit from lives of positive
value regardless of anything to do with pre-existence. In
contrast to that fact your absurd insistence that they don't
is COMPLETELY dependant on assigning huge significance
to something to do with pre-existence, yet you have never
been able to explain exactly how you think what prevents
them from benefitting. Try explaining it now Goober. Go: |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:56:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert pointed out:
| Quote: | You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
|
That's for sure. Goo lies more stupidly, more blatantly, and more
blatantly stupidly than anyone else I've seen posting anywhere,
and he does it a *lot!* From my experience with the Goober, he
lies WAY more than he tells the truth.
| Quote: | My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
|
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
| Quote: | It's understandable that you would have forgotten this.
|
How could it be understandable that he would have
forgotten something he insists is the only way to make
sense of the concept? It's much more likely that he's
lying, especially considering the fact that he's always
lying.
| Quote: | You snipped it and
ignored it completely, as usual obviously have no interest in
listening to the actual point of what I was saying.
You can entertain the hypothesis that we are souls and that we existed
before we became attached to our current bodies. That is at least
coherent, although there is not the slightest reason for any rational
person to give any credence to it. But it is not appropriate to speak
of the state the souls were in before they became attached to their
current bodies as a "pre-existent state", or to speak of a soul before
it has become attached to any body as a "pre-existent entity". That is
a travesty of language. An entity cannot exist before it comes into
existence.
|
If we're going to refer to "them" then, how do you suggest we do it?
| Quote: | Let us assume that what you were actually doing was interpreting David
Harrison as saying that animals have souls which existed before they
became attached to the animals' bodies,
|
I don't have a belief either way about it. That being the case, Goo
wants to lie and say that I do. Why? Other than the fact that he's a
Goober, it's because he is as always rightly afraid that if people can
appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value,
then they won't consider the elimination objective to be the most
ethical approach humans can take.
| Quote: | and trying to refute David Harrison's argument
|
In all this time Goo has never even acknowledged what it is,
much less actually tried to refute it. He doesn't even try to refute
what he lies and says I believe, much less what I actually do.
On top of that, when the Goober lies about something he is
actually giving up on what we're really in disagreement about,
and therefore loses by forfeit. I've been explaining that to Goo
for year and years, but he insists:
"I win, no matter what I do." - Goo
meaning that the Goober might *think* he wins even when it's
obvious to everyone else that he lost completely.
| Quote: | by saying "We can conjecture that an animal's soul
may actually have been better off before it became attached to its
current body." That's silly.
|
Accepting that conjecture as being more than likely
is necessary in order to consider the Goobal position:
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - 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 for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo
| Quote: | That's just replying to one totally
unfounded conjecture with another totally unfounded conjecture.
|
Goo began that way, and then moved on to insisting
that indeed his supposed pre-existent "state" must
provide better welfare than "the life we can detect",
since he now wants us to believe he somehow learned
that:
_________________________________________________________
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo
"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - 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
"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo
"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". They don't because there is no
alternative. They don't because they don't care
that they "get to experience life". They don't
because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo
""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
In order for Goo to believe all that, he must believe in a pre-existent
state which provides a higher value of existence than "the existence
we know".
| Quote: | The
appropriate response is to say that the hypothesis that animals' souls
existed before they became attached to their current bodies is not
worth taking seriously.
|
That works against Goo's claims and supports mine. Some animals
do benefit from lives of positive value, and the only "arguments" against
the fact are completely dependant on assigning great value to the
concept of pre-existence and some supposed influence it could have
on existing beings. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: Another self-outstupidification by the Goober (was: Re: The |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Goo lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:18:03 -0100, dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Goo wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Goo wrote:
Mr. Harrison challenged the Goober:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Goo,
Yes, Mr. Harrison, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Mr. Harrison.
No challenge, Mr. Harrison. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
David Harrison's challenge
No. It was not a challenge. It was a stupid cracker demand.
|
It's obviously too much of a challenge for you Goob, since you
can't explain even when you pretend to make an attempt to.
| Quote: | was to explain something. You wrote "I just
did explain, you fucking Stupidist." So you did claim to have met
David Harrison's challenge.
Good point. The Goober claimed to have met the challenge--which
was a lie even though he made a pathetically feeble attempt--and then
he very blatantly and extremely stupidly denied the challenge he lied
about having met.
Stupid, confused point. I explained the issue.
|
It's obviously too much of a challenge for you Goob, since
you can't explain even when you pretend to make an attempt.
"Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare" is just
pitiful maundering Goober. It does nothing to explain how you think
anything to do with pre-existent entities prevents existing beings
from benefitting from lives of positive value. You have no idea
what it is you think you're trying to talk about Goo.
| Quote: | Another classic self-outstupidification by our favorite
Goober: Goobernicus Gonad. When Goo outstupids himself to this
degree it always makes a person wonder how clueless he really is,
bringing to mind questions like:
1. How does Goo think he disagrees with himself this time?
2. How does Goo think he agrees with himself that pre-existent
entities--the consideration of which is essential to his supposed
explanation of the particular challenge he's dishonestly trying to
deny this time--somehow prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their existence? How does he think they do it?
You did not pose a challenge; you never have.
|
In contrast to that lie I've presented you with quite a few
challenges, all of which you are too inept to meet. The
particular challenge you're lying about in this thread has
grown from your own ineptitude to produce questions I'll
now challenge you to try explaining:
1. Try explaining how you think you disagree with yourself
that the challenge you claim to have already explained,
somehow also does not exist.
2 Try explaining how you think pre-existent entities are
preventing all existing ones--including yourself--from
benefitting from their own existence. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 20, 4:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
| Quote: | Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
|
David Harrison wrote "Try explaining how you think pre-existent
entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value." You
wrote "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist." That implies that you
*do* think that pre-existent entities prevent existing one from
benefitting from lives of positive value. This is talking as though it
makes some sense to talk about a "pre-existent entity". This is what
happens when you pay no attention to what your correspondents are
actually saying. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 20, 4:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
David Harrison wrote "Try explaining how you think pre-existent
entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value." You
wrote "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist." That implies that you
*do* think that pre-existent entities prevent existing one from
benefitting from lives of positive value.
|
No, you STUPID naive fuck. Goo Fuckwit David Harrison wrote, "Try
explaining [bunch of cracker bullshit]", and I snipped it off to leave
only his silly shrill cracker pig-fucker demand: "Try explaining". I
then replied that I had already explained everything that needed
explaining.
You have to understand, rupie, I don't take Goo Fuckwit David Harrison
any more seriously than I take you, which is not much at all. I don't
think what the stupid cracker pig-fucker claims I do, so I didn't
respond to his demand.
You are fucking clueless, rupie. All this time, and you still don't
know how the game is played. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
Rupert pointed out:
|
No - no "pointing out", Goo.
| Quote: |
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
LOL! That's yet another blatant lie
|
No.
| Quote: | My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't.
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" -
|
That's *your* use, *your* dependency on "pre-existence", Goo. The
only way *YOUR* bullshit could possibly make sense, Goo, is if one
assumes a "pre-existent" state. I do not assume it, and no one else
does, Goo - only you, in your cracker depraviy. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied: :
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge.
I am sure you are right that I ought to read Salt's essay.
_________________________________________________________
Logic of the Larder
by Henry S. Salt
Which conclusively shows that animals do not "benefit" or "get something
from the arrangement" from being brought into existence.
LOL!!! It doesn't show anything of the kind
|
Yes, it most certainly does show it, cracker. Animals do not "get
something from the arrangement" by being brought into existent. Only
something that exists can "get something" from any arrangement.
This has all been proved beyond rational dispute, Fuckwit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 20, 10:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
David Harrison wrote "Try explaining how you think pre-existent
entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value." You
wrote "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist." That implies that you
*do* think that pre-existent entities prevent existing one from
benefitting from lives of positive value.
No, you STUPID naive fuck. Goo Fuckwit David Harrison wrote, "Try
explaining [bunch of cracker bullshit]", and I snipped it off to leave
only his silly shrill cracker pig-fucker demand: "Try explaining". I
then replied that I had already explained everything that needed
explaining.
You have to understand, rupie, I don't take Goo Fuckwit David Harrison
any more seriously than I take you, which is not much at all. I don't
think what the stupid cracker pig-fucker claims I do, so I didn't
respond to his demand.
You are fucking clueless, rupie. All this time, and you still don't
know how the game is played.
|
I'm rather proud of the fact that I don't play the game your way,
actually. :)
I fully understand that you don't take David Harrison seriously, but
if he says "Try explaining X", and you snip to "Try explaining" and
respond "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist", then you are
implicitly accepting X as a fair paraphrase of your views, which makes
you look foolish. You need to actually say "That is not what I
believe".
It is *you* who are clueless and does not understand how the game
ought to be played. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 20, 3:38 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 20, 10:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
David Harrison wrote "Try explaining how you think pre-existent
entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value." You
wrote "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist." That implies that you
*do* think that pre-existent entities prevent existing one from
benefitting from lives of positive value.
No, you STUPID naive fuck. Goo Fuckwit David Harrison wrote, "Try
explaining [bunch of cracker bullshit]", and I snipped it off to leave
only his silly shrill cracker pig-fucker demand: "Try explaining". I
then replied that I had already explained everything that needed
explaining.
You have to understand, rupie, I don't take Goo Fuckwit David Harrison
any more seriously than I take you, which is not much at all. I don't
think what the stupid cracker pig-fucker claims I do, so I didn't
respond to his demand.
You are fucking clueless, rupie. All this time, and you still don't
know how the game is played.
I'm rather proud of the fact that I don't play the game
|
You do, but badly.
| Quote: | I fully understand that you don't take David Harrison seriously, but
if he says "Try explaining X", and you snip to "Try explaining" and
respond "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist", then you are
implicitly accepting X
|
No. I'm not.
You still don't get it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 20, 10:41 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 20, 3:38 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 10:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:20 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
No.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities".
David Harrison wrote "Try explaining how you think pre-existent
entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value." You
wrote "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist." That implies that you
*do* think that pre-existent entities prevent existing one from
benefitting from lives of positive value.
No, you STUPID naive fuck. Goo Fuckwit David Harrison wrote, "Try
explaining [bunch of cracker bullshit]", and I snipped it off to leave
only his silly shrill cracker pig-fucker demand: "Try explaining". I
then replied that I had already explained everything that needed
explaining.
You have to understand, rupie, I don't take Goo Fuckwit David Harrison
any more seriously than I take you, which is not much at all. I don't
think what the stupid cracker pig-fucker claims I do, so I didn't
respond to his demand.
You are fucking clueless, rupie. All this time, and you still don't
know how the game is played.
I'm rather proud of the fact that I don't play the game
You do, but badly.
I fully understand that you don't take David Harrison seriously, but
if he says "Try explaining X", and you snip to "Try explaining" and
respond "I did explain, you fucking Stupidist", then you are
implicitly accepting X
No. I'm not.
You still don't get it.
|
Poor Ball has a lot of trouble understanding what he commits himself
to saying with his ranting and babbling. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Pandit Nathuram Premi Research Series Volume 23 |
|
|
"Jainism, a unique religion with
its own philosophy, mythology, ethics and rituals, has significantly
preserved its personal religious identity, containing its own deities,
scriptures and preceptors. Jainism has its own temples, places of
worship and pilgrimage, and festivals. The designate Jain applies to
cs. eight million members of India's most ancient Sramana religion.
Fixing a specific date of origin of Jainism, however, presents the
utmost difficulty. To the Jains, Jainism reveals itself over and over
through myriad eternities of time by way of innumerable Tirthankaras
or fordmakers.""
Some of them also say that their religion predates hinduism and that
hinduism borrowed religious thinking from them. Here is an example of
eating meat:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jainsamachar/message/621
"after reading following one will be convinced that vegetarian & ahimsa
concept was borrowed by vedic religion ( today corruptly known as
hinduism ) from jainism .
HINDU SCRIPTURES ALLOW NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD
Some Hindus think that it is against their religion to have
non-vegetarian food But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a
person to have meat The scripture mentions sages and saints having
meat. Hindu scriptures clearly mention that there is nothing wrong in
having meat."
He then has several pages of examples from hindu scripture in support of
his claim. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ravimpillay
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Pandit Nathuram Premi Research Series Volume 23 |
|
|
harikumar asshole ... please come up with some new trick
to downplay hinduism
the vedic people used to eat meat ........
so what ????
many do so in kerala , bengal , northeast and in central india...
the greatest thing about hinduism is that it took the precept of non-
violence
fro Jainism and turned it to vegetarianism in hinduism .....
tell me which religion .. christianity ? islam has learned anything
from other great religions ..
You are nothing but a whining sanitary pad of the christians
and prefer to flaunt your conversion wherever possible .
I am sure your mother would have loved to wring your neck if she
know you would grow up like this ..... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mirza Ghalib
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: Re: Pandit Nathuram Premi Research Series Volume 23 |
|
|
On Aug 20, 4:22 pm, hari.ku...@indero.com wrote:
| Quote: | "Jainism, a unique religion with
its own philosophy, mythology, ethics and rituals, has significantly
preserved its personal religious identity, containing its own deities,
scriptures and preceptors. Jainism has its own temples, places of
worship and pilgrimage, and festivals. The designate Jain applies to
cs. eight million members of India's most ancient Sramana religion.
Fixing a specific date of origin of Jainism, however, presents the
utmost difficulty. To the Jains, Jainism reveals itself over and over
through myriad eternities of time by way of innumerable Tirthankaras
or fordmakers.""
Some of them also say that their religion predates hinduism and that
hinduism borrowed religious thinking from them. Here is an example of
eating meat:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jainsamachar/message/621
"after reading following one will be convinced that vegetarian & ahimsa
concept was borrowed by vedic religion ( today corruptly known as
hinduism ) from jainism .
HINDU SCRIPTURES ALLOW NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD
Some Hindus think that it is against their religion to have
non-vegetarian food But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a
person to have meat The scripture mentions sages and saints having
meat. Hindu scriptures clearly mention that there is nothing wrong in
having meat."
He then has several pages of examples from hindu scripture in support of
his claim.
|
No sane HIndu thinks vegetarianism is a requirement for his or her
faith. There are verses in Valmiki Ramayana testifying to Lord Rama
and his family consuming the hunted animals during their sojourn
in the forests. Read Mahabharata in the Virat Parva, where Bhim,
disguised as a master chef under the pseudonym Vallava describes
his culinary skills to King Virata. So do not make an issue out of
nothing.
The great thing about Hinduism is that it accomodates one and all.
There are dietary guidelines suitable for every section of society,
like rajas, Tamasik and Satvik. Choose your own, without
being banished from the faith. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
