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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote: On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:59:56 +0100, tidbit wrote:
On 30/06/2011 22:46, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:24:04 +0100, wrote: On 29/06/2011 23:34, dh@. 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. dh@ 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
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:36:31 +0100, tidbit wrote:
On 30/06/2011 22:56, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote: On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 29th 03 11:17 PM |