A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat community
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's in pet food?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old July 1st 11, 02:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/30/2011 5:26 PM, tidbit wrote:
On 01/07/2011 00:14, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/30/2011 3:36 PM, tidbit wrote:
On 30/06/2011 22:56, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo wrote:

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a
position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my
mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not
receive
anything.

Yet you clearly appear to be benefitting from your existence whether
the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.

I do benefit from my existence

That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not
exist.

What on earth *are* you getting at? Why do you talk such nonsense when
you *must* surely understand by now after 12 years how only living
experiential things can receive a benefit?

from the advantages I was given while
growing up.

You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't
litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable
explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence
because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own
conception?

A zygote can't benefit by starting to exist either. It has to exist
before it can receive a benefit.


Zygotes can't benefit at all, even when they exist, because they do not
have an experiential existence. It has no nervous system, no brain, no
welfare - no means of experiencing anything.

How very true. I'm trying not to trip myself up, so I'm grateful for
your help while I learn how the terms are being defined here. A stuffy
nose is something without an experiential welfare but it could be said
to benefit from some cool fresh air. A heart benefits from regular
exercise - that sort of thing. I'll be careful.

Tidbit, it is anyone's guess where ****wit even learned the word zygote,
but apart maybe from looking it up in Wikipedia, he has no idea what one
is, nor what its attributes are. He never took even a high school
biology course, and he has no formal education beyond high school. In
high school, he took vocational courses, not a university preparatory
curriculum.


Well I can't rubbish him for not going to uni because neither did I.


I'm not criticizing anyone for not going to university; I am just
pointing out that when he starts blabbering about scientific terms, he
hasn't learned them in a supervised academic setting.

  #72  
Old July 4th 11, 08:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

****wit David Harrison lied:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:36:31 +0100, wrote:

****wit David Harrison lied:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

****wit David Harrison lied:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, George Plimpton wrote:

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not receive
anything.

Yet you clearly appear to be benefitting from your existence


No.


I do benefit from my existence

That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.


Gibberish - that was completely unintelligible gibberish.



What on earth *are* you getting at?


If your existence was not one of the benefits


It isn't.



Why do you talk such nonsense


I point out facts


You point out no facts - zero.



when
you *must* surely understand by now after 12 years how only living
experiential things can receive a benefit?


I already told you that even IF conception was not a benefit


No, not "even if" - it isn't, and existence is not a benefit - by
definition, ****wit. Existence is not a benefit, ****wit - you *know*
this to be true.


from the advantages I was given while
growing up.

You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own conception?

A zygote can't benefit by starting to exist either. It has to exist
before it can receive a benefit.


You need to explain what you want us to believe prevented conception from
being a benefit


Nope - *you*, ****wit, need to explain how it could be a benefit, but
you won't - you can't, and you have *admitted* that you can't. You're
just bull****ting now.


I didn't benefit from starting to exist because I had no
welfare before

Even though you only seem able to appreciate that you benefitted while you
were growing up IF you can appreciate that much, you still appear to be
benefitting.


Yes, by the advantages I gained yesterday - nourishment, wisdom and
love. Things that don't exist can't gain those advantages.


That's because existence is one of the benefits


No, ****wit - existence is *NOT* a benefit, by definition. You know this.


/They/, if we
can call /them/ that, or even /them/, can't benefit from anything until
/they/ exist.

Whether you actually are still benefitting or not, you need to
explain what it is about BEFORE that prevents you from benefitting now. Explain:

I have but you didn't listen apparently. There was no *BEFORE* for me
before I started to exist.


LOL! You want me to believe you don't benefit now, because there was no
before for you before you started to exist.


Correct, ****wit. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of
an entity. Before the entity exists, there is no welfare, and so
nothing to improve.

You know this, ****wit - you're just ****ing around pointlessly. It's
an indication of the ****ty quality of your existence. You exist in
****. Your life is ****.

You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others.


Nope. They aren't benefiting from existence, nor do they appear to be.



Yes but the benefits I received were available only after I started to
exist.


You still appear to be benefitting


*Not* from existence - no.


They had nothing to do with my pre-existence because I didn't
have one. Nothing did.

Don't let
it bother you though. It's really a good thing :-) It's good that people like
Goo can't make it impossible for any creature to benefit from a life of positive
value, simply by claiming something about pre-existence prevents it.


Who is Goo anyway?


Right now he's


"Goo" is you, ****wit - Goo ****wit David Harrison. Goo is short for
Goober, as in Stupid Goober, and that is you - it always has been.

Tidbit, if you're reading this, I labeled ****wit "Goober"/"Goo" over 10
years ago. He thought, incorrectly, that he could turn it back at me.
It failed, with the exception of another stupid moronic douchebag named
Ron Hamilton, a 40+ year old janitor in Canada. No one else thinks Goo
refers to me - *everyone* else knows it's ****wit.


No don't answer that. I'm not interested in your
childish name-calling. Whoever this person is I get the feeling you're
not being entirely honest about what he claims.



He isn't.
  #73  
Old July 4th 11, 11:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:59:56 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 30/06/2011 22:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:24:04 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:34, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:50:46 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 18:24, Goo wrote:

In which of the numerous newsgroups that ****wit spammed are you
following this thread?

a.animal.ethics.vegetarian. I picked it up in r.pets.dogs.health and
followed it to there where Rudy Canoza usually posts from. I subscribed
to it just over a week ago. [email protected] usually posts from there too.

"Rudy" and "George" are both

You. You are the OP who started this thread under the name Rudy Canoza.
I've just checked the headers.


It was an inside "joke" directed at Goo, not something intended to confuse
people like yourself.

It's not an inside joke directed at one person when spammed across so
many groups.


It is when it is, and that is. Now you're in on it, sort of.

Goo this - - - Goo that. How silly.


I showed you the partial list of dozens of different people Goo has
pretended to be


You're in no position to criticise anyone after pulling a dishonest
stunt like that.


You're in no position to judge whether or not I'm in a position to criticise
Goo for one thing. For another, what particular criticism do you think you're
referring to? Post supporting quotes.

It's people like you that have slowly emptied so many
newsgroups over recent years.


Any contribution I've made to people moving to safe moderated groups is NOT
because of me attacking the Goober, I guarantee you that. In contrast, Goo
deliberately ran every elimination opponent out of aaev except for myself, so if
you want to bitch about this issue then bitch at Goo, not me.

I used to use my real name


Goo posts my name and personal info on the internet frequently.

and allow my
posts to be archived before kids like you came along and took that
freedom away.


I didn't take a thing away from you or anyone else. I also never posted
anyone else's personal information on the internet as Goo has done countless
times. Try to appreciate the significance:

I have NEVER done it. Goo has done it OFTEN.

Why do you think it's okay for Goo to post people's personal information, and
more specifically, why should I think it's okay for Goo to post mine?
  #74  
Old July 4th 11, 11:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:36:31 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 30/06/2011 22:56, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo wrote:

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not receive
anything.

Yet you clearly appear to be benefitting from your existence whether the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.

I do benefit from my existence


That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.

What on earth *are* you getting at?


If your existence was not one of the benefits that makes all others possible
then you could continue to benefit after you cease to exist.

Why do you talk such nonsense


I point out facts that some people don't want to believe. You for example
don't want to believe it's possible for any beings to benefit from their
existence, and when it's pointed out that many do that works against what you
WANT to believe creating cognitive dissonance in your brain. It doesn't change
the reality, but it changes the way you interpret the reality. In your case,
because it works against what you WANT to believe, your poor little brain tries
to deny the reality. So it's not me pointing out facts that are nonsense. It's
your defensive brain trying to convince you that the facts are untrue because
they disagree with what YOU WANT to believe.

when
you *must* surely understand by now after 12 years how only living
experiential things can receive a benefit?


I already told you that even IF conception was not a benefit to your zygote,
though btw everything indicates that is WAS, you STILL appear to be benfitting
from your own existence. So you need to explain what you want people to think is
preventing you from doing what you clearly appear to be doing. Try explaining it
now. Go:

from the advantages I was given while
growing up.


You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own conception?

A zygote can't benefit by starting to exist either. It has to exist
before it can receive a benefit.


You need to explain what you want us to believe prevented conception from
being a benefit to your zygote.

I didn't benefit from starting to exist because I had no
welfare before


Even though you only seem able to appreciate that you benefitted while you
were growing up IF you can appreciate that much, you still appear to be
benefitting.


Yes, by the advantages I gained yesterday - nourishment, wisdom and
love. Things that don't exist can't gain those advantages.


That's because existence is one of the benefits that makes all others
possible.

/They/, if we
can call /them/ that, or even /them/, can't benefit from anything until
/they/ exist.

Whether you actually are still benefitting or not, you need to
explain what it is about BEFORE that prevents you from benefitting now. Explain:

I have but you didn't listen apparently. There was no *BEFORE* for me
before I started to exist.


LOL! You want me to believe you don't benefit now, because there was no
before for you before you started to exist. LOL!!! The part you're missing is
the part where you explain how that prevents you NOW. Try explaining that part
NOW:

then to gain anything.

What you need to do,
because Goo never could, is explain WHAT about your pre-existence you believe is
preventing you from benefitting from the existence you clearly appear to be
benefitting from now, and HOW you think it's preventing you.

There is nothing about my pre-existence to prevent me benefiting from my
existence now


So you are benefitting from your existence as you clearly appear to be, and
nothing about your pre-existence is preventing you from doing so as Goo fooled
you into believing it is.

because I didn't have a pre-existence to benefit from in
the first place. Do you believe in pre-existence?


I don't have a belief as to whether or not we experience multiple lives, but
I consider the possibility that we do. Goo lies to people and tells them I have
a belief, but of course I'd explain why if I did. Regardless of whether we do or
not though billions of beings appear to benefit from lives of positive value.

Well yes I'm sure some do, but of course they have to be alive first to
have a life of value.

If you can never do
that, as Goo and his boy have not been able to do, then we'll be left with you
appearing to benefit and no reason to believe you're not benefitting.


You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others.


Yes but the benefits I received were available only after I started to
exist.


You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others.

They had nothing to do with my pre-existence because I didn't
have one. Nothing did.

Don't let
it bother you though. It's really a good thing :-) It's good that people like
Goo can't make it impossible for any creature to benefit from a life of positive
value, simply by claiming something about pre-existence prevents it.


Who is Goo anyway?


Right now he's pretending to be George Plimpton. He has pretended to be
dozens of other people.

No don't answer that. I'm not interested in your
childish name-calling. Whoever this person is I get the feeling you're
not being entirely honest about what he claims.


Here are some of the stupid things Goo claims about animals:

"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
.. . .
"I eat meat." - 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

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

Nonsense.


Goo believes it...or at least claims to believe it.


I would like to see a Google reference to each of those quotes please.


Go see them then. While you're at it you could Google goobernicus gonad too,
and that will give you more info about Goo. You might also ask Goo if he can
explain how he wants you to think he disagrees with himself about any of them.
But he agrees with himself about all of it. If you think he disagrees with
himself about some of it then what do you think it is and why?
  #75  
Old July 5th 11, 08:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

****wit David Harrison attempted to bull****, but was thwarted by Dutch
and George Plimpton and 'tidbit':

[...]
What on earth *are* you getting at?


If your existence was not one of the benefits that makes all others possible


It is not. Existence is not a benefit - by definition. ****wit knows
it, too - he's just trolling and bull****ting.

Existence is not a benefit because it doesn't improve an entity's
welfare - it establishes it. The definition of benefit is something
that improves an entity's welfare, and existence does not.

This is settled ground. ****wit knows he has lost. He cannot make a
case for how existence might be a benefit, and he knows it; he just
can't stop his dirty trolling. He's like the scorpion that stings the
frog: dirty trolling is just ****wit's nature.

Existence is not a benefit to the entity that exists: proved beyond
dispute.
  #76  
Old July 5th 11, 11:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:57:51 -0700, Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:36:31 +0100, wrote:

Who is Goo anyway?


Right now he's


"Goo" is


Google search for goobernicus gonad:

Advanced search About 223 results

Google Goo - FoodBanter.com
Results 1 - 3 of 3 for goobernicus gonad. (0.15 seconds) #1 Goobernicus Gonad--
the moron who thinks he's a genius and enjoys being referred ...

www.foodbanter.com/vegan/66006-google-goo.html - Cached - SimilarGoogle Goo
Results 1 - 3 of 3 for goobernicus gonad. (0.15 seconds) #1 Goobernicus Gonad--
the moron who thinks he's a genius and enjoys being referred ...

www.petforumz.com/Google-Goo-ftopict800.html - Cached - Similar[nq:1]Yes. Yes
there is., Proof of anticipation
He is Goobernicus Gonad (aka Jon Ball, Rudy Canoza,)[/nq] Here's a partial list
of posters that Goo has dishonestly pretended to be over the years: Jonathan ...

http://www.englishforums.com/English...s/.../Post.htm - Cached -
SimilarGoo who?
Results 1 - 10 of about 217 for Goobernicus Gonad. (0.36 seconds) ...
Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. this is cl***ic! ...

www.nntpnews.info/threads/15733078-Goo-who - Cached - Similar'Extended
Life'...'Reduced Cruelty'...would you support it ...
Feb 12, 2011 ... Web Results 1 - 10 of about 652 for Goobernicus. (0.35 seconds)
newsbackup.com ~
View topic - The cowardice of Goo Goobernicus Gonad - - the ...

http://www.mombu.com/.../t-extended-...t-9127596.html
- Cached - SimilarGoo who? - alt.zen | Google Groups
Jun 1, 2010 ... Results 1 - 10 of about 217 for Goobernicus Gonad. (0.36
seconds) ...
Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. this is classic! ...

groups.google.kg/group/alt.zen/msg/b139e6e0e1fcad53 - Cached -
SimilarGoo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be ...
Results 1 - 10 of about 208 for goobernicus gonad. (0.34 seconds) ... name is
Goobernicus--Goobernicus Gonad. A Google search will ...

http://www.boatbanter.com/showthread...115661&page=14 - Cached - SimilarProof of
anticipation in ducks
Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius ... significant issues ...
Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. ...

www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic7069-0-asc-15.html - Cached - SimilarGoo who? -
..alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
May 31, 2010 ...

www.freak-search.com/en/thread/1499196/goo_who - Similar The cowardice of Goo
Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius and enjoys being referred
to simply as "Goo"--has proven himself an incredible coward. ...

http://www.food-newsgroups.com/post/...ce_of_Goo.html - Cached -
Similar
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kitten food for an 8 month old cat or switch to adult food? mike Cat health & behaviour 3 June 1st 09 12:12 AM
Cat food brands--Science Diet = cat equivalent of rich folk buyingtheir people food at Whole Foods and other boutique grocery stores? mike Cat health & behaviour 9 April 22nd 09 02:05 PM
Making dry food look/smell/taste like wet food Ray Ban Cat health & behaviour 20 October 30th 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.