Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CNN:  Woman goes raw, loses more than half herself

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Linda - 27 Sep 2008 15:19 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)

Woman goes raw, loses more than half herself

Story Highlights

* Angela Stokes, 30, was miserable, unhealthy, weighed 300 pounds
* She began a raw vegan diet after reading a book about its health benefits
* Stokes lost 160 pounds in two years, improving her emotional, physical
health
* She now weighs 138 pounds and has written several books on "raw foodism"

By Jackie Adams
CNN

(CNN) -- Angela Stokes had never been overweight as a child.

But she steadily started gaining weight as a teenager because of an
under-active thyroid gland. By the time she graduated from college her
weight had ballooned and she wore a U.K. dress size 26-28.

"I was 300 pounds, very unwell, very miserable," recalls Stokes. "I ate
junk food all the time. I was very closed down emotionally. I had no
interest in dieting; I just wanted to eat all the time ... that was like my
comfort in life."

At the time, she says she was so "emotionally shut down" she refused to
talk to anyone about what was happening. The weight was also taking a
physical toll on her health and she frequently battled infections and
illness.

Stokes says living her everyday life became a challenge.

"My mobility was quite restricted ... I was unwilling to participate in
things from cutting my toenails to going on a walk with my friends,"
remembered Stokes. "I tried to give this impression that I felt fine about
everything, but inside I was in a lot of pain a lot of the time."

Two summers after she reached her heaviest weight, Stokes was working at a
greenhouse in Iceland, when a friend lent her a copy of a book about the
health benefits of eating raw foods. Stokes, who had never been interested
in diets, says she was completely "absorbed" by the approach.

She started eating raw the very next day.

"Everything in my life completely shifted. It was like a light bulb moment
to be like ... 'this is what I was waiting for to reclaim my health,' "
said Stokes.

She went cold turkey or "cold cucumber," as Stokes often jokes. She stopped
eating meat, animal products and processed foods and instead switched to a
diet that consisted of uncooked and unprocessed vegetables, fruits, nuts
and seeds.

"To me, the thing with raw food is that it just makes sense. It's simple
and natural, eating food straight from the earth. There's no rocket
science, no mystery," said Stokes. "Once you understand the simple
principal that no other animal in the wild eats cooked or processed foods.
That's it."

The raw food diet completely transformed her life, she says. Within the
first month of going raw, she had her first boyfriend in more than five
years. In just two years, she had lost 160 pounds and has experienced
dramatic improvements emotionally, physically and socially and is "happier
than I've ever been."

Andrea Giancoli, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American
Dietetic Association, says everyone could stand to eat more fruits and
vegetables.

"We all need to be moving towards a more plant-based diet," Giancoli said.
"There are more pitfalls to a typical American diet with all of the
processed foods and focus on meat than there are to a plant-based diet."

Is it healthier to eat uncooked vegetables? Not necessarily.

"The raw diet, specifically, the philosophy behind it is scientifically
incorrect," Giancoli said. "Raw foodists believe that cooking food destroys
enzymes that are essential for the body. While that's true, so does the
gastric acid or juice in your stomach.

"So those enzymes are broken down anyway in your gastro-intestinal tract."

Giancoli believes there's a nutritional downside to a vegetarian diet.
People who eat no animal foods run the risk of nutritional deficiencies
such as a lack of vitamin B-12, iron and zinc and the powerful Omega-3
fatty acids found in fish, she said.

Giancoli recommends people meet with a dietitian to develop a balanced
eating plan before they embark on a raw food diet.

Stokes, who now weighs 138 pounds, has kept the weight off for four years
and authored several books on "raw foodism" lifestyle.

What tips does she have for people considering a raw vegan lifestyle?
First, start slowly.

"I recommend people start out being at least 50 percent raw and go from
there," advises Stokes. "Maybe it ends up at some point you are completely
raw, maybe not. As long as the majority of the stuff or at least 50 percent
is fresh raw food ... then you're tipping the balance in your favor."

Stokes also advises people to start eating things they like such as
peaches, plums or spinach and then slowly incorporate more fresh raw foods.
She admits the lifestyle can be socially challenging and she encourages
people to connect with other "raw foodists."

"It's great to get support. If you look on the Internet and around you, you
may find pot lucks," said Stokes. "Read books to inspire you to keep going
on this journey."
DB - 27 Sep 2008 16:20 GMT
"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in

> Stokes also advises people to start eating things they like such as
> peaches, plums or spinach and then slowly incorporate more fresh raw
> foods.
> She admits the lifestyle can be socially challenging and she encourages
> people to connect with other "raw foodists."

Why do people think they have to go to such extremes, just eat real food and
stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!
Rudy Canoza - 27 Sep 2008 17:28 GMT
> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Why do people think they have to go to such extremes, just eat real food and
> stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!

Exactly.  There is no great mystery to weight loss:  consume fewer
calories than you expend.  You can do that by some combination of
reduction of caloric intake and increase in exercise.  It just isn't
that hard.  People who weigh twice what they should, as this woman
apparently did, do *not* get to that state due to some "hormone" issue
or having the "wrong body type".  They get there because they eat TOO
MUCH f.cking FOOD, and they don't get off their lard a.ses enough.  My
wife packed on a bunch of weight /after/ the baby was born, and
eventually she got disgusted with herself.  She joined Curves, started
watching her portions - continued to eat everything she ate before, just
less of it - and she lost 50 pounds (circa 23kg) in about 18 months, and
she has kept it off.

The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
diet; that claim is bullshit.
DB - 28 Sep 2008 21:42 GMT
>> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> did, do *not* get to that state due to some "hormone" issue or having the
> "wrong body type".

I agree, people tend to pass on the blame other than themselves!
Getting of the couch is just too hard for them.

> The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
> diet; that claim is bullshit.

She was starving herself, there's no need for that!!!!!!!!!1
Seth - 29 Sep 2008 21:23 GMT
>The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
>diet; that claim is bullshit.

It's true.

Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
likely to overeat.

Seth
Signature

"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

pearl - 29 Sep 2008 21:35 GMT
> Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> likely to overeat.

This sounds delicious...

'Celery Slaw & Dressing

by Dr. Douglas Graham

Ingredients

1 large bunch of celery
2 red bell peppers
3 or 4 tomatoes
4 oz fresh walnuts

Instructions

1. Grate the celery and peppers and place in bowl.

2. Blend the tomatoes and walnuts and use as dressing.

*** http://www.living-foods.com/recipes/ ***
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 21:41 GMT
> Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> likely to overeat.

And that's why I can't imagine anyone WANTING to eat 200 calories of
celery...
pearl - 29 Sep 2008 21:49 GMT
> > Raw food is relatively low-calorie (can you imagine eating 200
> > calories of celery)?  And since it doesn't taste good, you're less
> > likely to overeat.
>
> And that's why I can't imagine anyone WANTING to eat 200 calories of
> celery...

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/6.28.01/China_Study_II.html
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:30 GMT
>> The blowpig in this story didn't lose weight because of eating a "raw"
>> diet; that claim is bullshit.
>
> It's true.

It's bullshit.
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 12:04 GMT
>"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Why do people think they have to go to such extremes,

   There are several different reasons and ideas going on here.

1. The objective - to lose weight. But. As the person loses weight,
supposedly, other things become significant aspects and
considerations.

2. The method - Raw or not, you and Goobernicus have a good
point that the main thing is to burn more than you consume. To
what extent is what matters. How exactly, determines the extent.
Why to choose different methods becomes less significant to the
outcome but still can be significant to the person. Maybe people
like the raw thing as an adventure or something. Grazing and
foraging satisfies some of their instincts. I feel confident that
women like shopping because it satisfies their gathering instincts,
and men like sports...

3. The ethics - is this person suggesting raw fish? It seems
like "vegan" got thrown in there somewhere along the way.
People don't become vegan for health reasons at all. That
involves not using animal products of any kind when possible,
which isn't something a person would do to lose weight. But.
 · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules,  Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

   The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
   From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>just eat real food and stay away from the packaged garbage!!!!!

   I wouldn't even matter about that if a person pays attention.
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:40 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> "Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>     There are several different reasons and ideas going on here.

We don't take analysis from a stupid pig-f.cking cracker like you, Goo.
dh@. - 30 Sep 2008 13:13 GMT
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:

>>>"Linda" <linda@not4eamil.com> wrote in
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
>We don't take analysis

   You just can't think things through, Goo. Any time something
suggests that the elimination objective might not be the most
ethical possible approach Goob, your cognitive dissonance kicks
in and tries to refute or deny the information preventing you from
thinking it through.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 16:16 GMT
Wrong, Goo.  You tried this before, Goo, and I kicked it up your cracker
a.s.  I don't think that "pre-existence prevents" anything, Goo.  Goo,
you stupid cracker.  Try something new.

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Rudy f. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>     You just can't think things through

I can and do, Goo.  I show that you cannot.  Goo.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:02 GMT
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> in and tries to refute or deny the information preventing you from
> thinking it through.

Wait, wait wait...

I'm trying to get this straight.

Rudy is Goo or Goob and he has dissonance, right?

And you are the Cork person, right?

I need a scorecard here or something.
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 17:07 GMT
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>>>> (and death) for farm animals
. . .

>>> We don't take analysis
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Rudy is Goo or Goob

   Correct. Keep in mind that there really is no "Rudy", or "Ted",
or "Lief", or "Dieter", or "Abner", or "Roger", or "Jay", etc... They
are all the same individual best referred to as Goobernicus, or any
variation on the name.

>and he has dissonance, right?

   Goo feels very strongly that:

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

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

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

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

Whenever something conflicts with his beliefs it causes
cognitive dissonance. It's common for everyone who advocates
the elimination objective which hides beneath the gross misnomer
"animal rights", to experience cognitive dissonance whenever
someone suggests considering lives of positive value for livestock,
and with Goo in particular that branches out to include the lives of
everything that ever lived. The Goober insists that something to do
with our pre-existent "selves" prevents us from benefitting from our
own existence, but he has never been able to say exactly how he
thinks they prevent it.

>And you are the Cork person, right?

   I point out things that Goo and eliminationists in general don't
want to see pointed out. I point out that many livestock benefit
from lives of positive value, which conflicts with what eliminationists
want people to believe because it suggests that providing decent
animal welfare could be ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating
domestic animals, livestock included. AW and the misnomer are
completely different and opposing ideas, though misnomer advocates
do exploit AW situations in order to obtain funding for their attempts
to eliminate the very animals they pretend to be interested in trying
to provide decent lives for. Their end goal is to eliminate them, not
provide them with rights or anything else.

>I need a scorecard here or something.

   Any time you challenge Goo to try explaining why he thinks he
doesn't benefit from life without referring to "Him" (his pre-existent
"self"), he will fail completely. You can rack up the points with that
one, and several others btw.
Rudy Canoza - 27 Sep 2008 17:32 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/26/weightloss.angela.stokes/
> index.html?iref=mpstoryview (pictures and video on web site)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> But she steadily started gaining weight as a teenager because of an
> under-active thyroid gland.

BULLSHIT.  It seems almost every hugely obese fat slob claims to have
some "gland" problem, or the "wrong body type", or some other BULLSHIT
excuse.

The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.  Their
defect is a *character* defect, not a physical one.  A secondary defect,
and the one that means they usually can't sustain a weight loss, is that
they're childish excuse makers - it's the glands, or the body type, or
the food manufacturers, or some other thing other than their own
gluttony and lack of willpower.  The fact is, most of them just don't
care if they're corpulent slobs or not.
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 15:14 GMT
> The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.

How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?  Ever been fat yourself, only to then
take on a "typical" active lifestyle, and watch the pounds melt off so
simply it was insane?  No?  Then why do you feel the need to talk out of
your a.s on this?  Oh, I know...  Never mind...
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 16:51 GMT
>> The *fact* is, they're just lazy goddamned f.cking gluttons.
>
> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?

Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.

> Ever been fat yourself,

No, of course not, stupid.  I have always taken pride in my appearance,
always wanted to be healthy, and so I never adopted - because that's
what it is - a "lifestyle" that would cause me to become obese.  In
fact, I weigh about seven pounds more today than I did when I graduated
high school nearly 40 years ago, and it's almost all muscle, from going
to the gym three days a week.

Why do you make excuses for bad character and bad choices, shitbag?
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 18:10 GMT
>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>
> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.

Fantastic...  I've been around electrical engineers, and observed them.  I
must now know all there is to know about designing fancy electrical
crap...

>> Ever been fat yourself,
>
> No, of course not, stupid.

Then how the f.ck would you know, a.shole?  Fact is, you don't...  You
are, however, so self centered and egotistical, that you think you know
best, that you know what is wrong with everyone and it's so simple to fix
themself so they are just like you...

Arrogant puke...
Rudy Canoza - 29 Sep 2008 20:02 GMT
On Sep 29, 10:10 am, The Master
<tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> >> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> must now know all there is to know about designing fancy electrical
> crap...

Invalid comparison, fattie.  Of course, you knew that even before you
wrote it.

> >> Ever been fat yourself,
>
> > No, of course not, stupid.
>
> Then how the f.ck would you know, a.shole?  Fact is, you don't...  

The fact is, fatso, I *DO* know.  We *all* know that the vast majority
of blowpigs are not that way because of some medical "problem".
They're the way they are because of a character problem.
The Master - 29 Sep 2008 20:35 GMT
>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Invalid comparison, fattie.

Yes valid, dipshit...

You: "I saw a fat person eat something while sitting down, it must mean
that all fat people are lazy pigs"

>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The fact is, fatso, I *DO* know.

Sure you do...  *rolling eyes*

"All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"

So...  The fact that only 10% of all dieters can keep off a 5% weight loss
for 5 years has nothing to do with the "eating less" part being a
drasticly over simplification to a much more complex situation.  Never
crossed your mind, did it?
dh@. - 29 Sep 2008 18:53 GMT
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>drasticly over simplification to a much more complex situation.  Never
>crossed your mind, did it?

   The Goober is extremely shallow, and the simplest of details
leave him ranting in bewildered frustration. Come to think of it
pretty much everything reduces Goo to a howling idiot. Goo is
best known for his dishonesty, followed by his tendency to
make absurd claims he can't even begin to back up. For
example the Goober insists that something to do with his
pre-existent self which we refer to as "Him" or "He" is somehow
preventing Goob from benefitting from his own existence. Goo
has yet to explain exactly *how* he thinks "He" is doing it, but
he feels certain that "He" is. If you can get the Goober to try
explaining what he thinks he thinks about this, you'll see what
I mean. It's getting more and more difficult to get him to make
the effort because he continues to fail every time he makes
the attempt, but he still makes the claim none the less. Here
are some examples:

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"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

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - 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

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - 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

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - 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

"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

Goo has a claim without a clue. He makes the claim
time after time, yet can never explain *how* he thinks
it can actually be the case without referring to "Him"
or to "Them". The Goober has no clue *how* he thinks
it works, and he will prove that every time he's challenged
to try doing so. It's fun and the outcome is dependable
when you challenge Goo on this.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 06:26 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>>>>> How the f.ck would you know, Rudy?
>>>>> Because I've been around enough of them, and I've observed them.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>> Invalid comparison, fattie.
>> Yes valid,

Invalid.

>>>>>> Ever been fat yourself,
>>>>> No, of course not, stupid.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> "All fat people have to do is eat less, it's so simple"

Not what anyone said.

>     Rudy is extremely

Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Fuckwit, you stupid
pig-f.cking cracker.
Hoots - 30 Sep 2008 10:23 GMT
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Goo claimed:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
> to try doing so. It's fun and the outcome is dependable
> when you challenge Goo on this.

Who's Goo?
dh@. - 30 Sep 2008 14:58 GMT
>dh@. explained:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
. . .

>> ""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Who's Goo?

   He is the most dishonest person I've ever encountered
for one thing. Goo has dishonestly posted as and pretended
to be all of the following "different people" and more:

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

Recently the Goober has been posting as "Rudy Canoza"
most of the time, it appears. Since Goo was dishonestly
pretending to be so many different people--praising and
congratulating himselves frequently--there needed to be
one name to identify that same Goober regardless of who
all he was pretending to be. Being a moron who considers
himself a genius he was dubbed Goobernicus years ago
...Goobernicus Gonad in full out of recognition for the first
person Goo pretended to be: Jonathan Ball. Instead of
rewarding his dishonesty by calling him Wilson in one
thread, Dieter in another, Ted in another, Jay in another,
Rudy in another, Leif in another, etc...and quite frequently
as more than one of himselves in the same thread, it has
become much more efficient and also realistic to refer
to him as one individual instead of as many. Hence
Goobernicus, Goo, the Goober, Goob, etc. Gonad
identifies Goo as well.

   Now that you know who Goo is, I invite you to
challenge the Goober to try explaining what he thinks
prevents him from benefitting from his own life without
referring to "Him" (his pre-existent "self"). It's fun, and
the outcome is guaranteed:

The challenge will defeat him.
Rudy Canoza - 30 Sep 2008 19:50 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> Rudy is a genious
>> Who's Rudy?
>
>     He is

A genius.

>     Now that you know who Rudy is, I invite you to
> challenge him to try explaining what he thinks
> prevents him from benefitting from his own life

No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo.  The explanation has
been made many times.  "Getting to experience life" is not a "benefit"
compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
impossible and absurd, as has been shown.
Hoots - 01 Oct 2008 12:28 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
> impossible and absurd, as has been shown.

I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...

But, hey, what about that woman who wants to give you a foot massage?
That seems awful tempting, right?
dh@. - 01 Oct 2008 16:13 GMT
>Goo lied:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...

   Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.
Hoots - 02 Oct 2008 11:32 GMT
>> Goo lied:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>     Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
> explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.

Who's "Him"?
dh@. - 05 Oct 2008 18:43 GMT
>>> Goo lied:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>>> compared with never existing, Goo.  In fact, the comparison is
>>>> impossible and absurd, as has been shown.

>>> I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...
>>
>>     Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
>> explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.
>
>Who's "Him"?

   Here's the whole thing: A number of years ago I started pointing
out in some of the animal related groups that since animals are not
simply "killed" because humans raise them for food, we should give
their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Some
of them have decent lives of positive value and some don't, and
we can't think realistically about whether or not it's cruel *for them*
to be raised for food unless we take it all into consideration. Of
course advocates for the gross misnomer "animal rights"--more
accurately and honestly referred to as "eliminationists" in regards to
domestic animals--are extremely opposed to that idea. They oppose
it because it suggests that some alternative(s) could be ethically
equivalent or superior to their objective to eliminate domestic animals.
In particular it suggests that decent animal welfare could be ethically
superior to the misnomer.

   In his maniacal obsession to oppose the suggestion that people
actually consider the animals when considering whether or not it's
cruel to raise them for food, Goob has gone to the extreme of insisting
that no being has ever benefitted from its life. The Goober claims that
he himself doesn't benefit from his own life. Goo can never explain
exactly *how* he thinks we are prevented from benefitting, but he
makes it clear he believes it has something to do with our pre-existent
"selves":

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - 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

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.  
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo

"Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

Notice that all of Goo's supposed "arguments" are completely
dependant on assigning some huge significance to the concept
of pre-existence. Out of convenience, and because it's fun, we
can refer to "Him" or "He" when referring to a male's pre-existence,
and "Them" or "They" when referring to a group of individuals'
pre-existences, etc. The Goober makes the claim repeatedly,
and might actually believe it, even though he can never explain
exactly *why* he thinks he doesn't benefit from living because of
some supposed influence by "Him".
Rudy Canoza - 05 Oct 2008 22:10 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [bullshit]

A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.
Hoots - 06 Oct 2008 13:30 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.

He does like to go on...

Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
visit for awhile.
dh@. - 06 Oct 2008 15:10 GMT
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>He does like to go on...

   It's good typing practice, and good for practicing presenting
information. Also, the only "good" thing about an interaction like
this with a person like Goo, is getting to point out what he's lying
about, etc. If a person is stupid enough to believe the Goober's
lies, that shows something too. By now I have a fairly large
collection of Goo's lies and unsupported absurd claims, which
of course are just a small sample of the deluge of bullshit that
Goo has shared with us over the years.

>Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
>rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
>visit for awhile.

   I've been trying to get Goo to explain what he thinks prevents
us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves" for
years and he can't even make the attempt. He's made the claim
countless times but never tried to back it up. Since we're having
this little visit, why not see if you can get Goo to try explaining any
of a number of claims without referring to "Him" or "Them" (his own
pre-existent self, or the pre-existent selves of all other beings that
have ever lived). Choose any of the following from this sampling of
absurd seeming claims and see if you can get the Goober to explain
what he thinks he's trying to talk about without referring to "Them":

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"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

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing,
for very well documented and tightly logical reasons that
have been explained THOUSANDS of times here, and
that you, of course, cannot refute." - 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

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - 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
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 17:58 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>     It's good typing practice

It's bullshit.

>> Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
>> rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
>> visit for awhile.
>
>     I've been trying to get Rudy to explain what he thinks prevents
> us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves"

No, you haven't.

There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:34 GMT
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 the Goober lied:

>>>Goo lied:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>It's bullshit.

   LOL. I'm *pointing out* bullshit, Goo. I point out the misnomer's
bullshit in general, and your bullshit in particular, Goob. It's what
I do, and lying about it is what you do. Try to keep up at least
with your own self, you lame Goober.

>>If a person is stupid enough to believe the Goober's
>>lies, that shows something too. By now I have a fairly large
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>No, you haven't.

   Yes Goo, I've been challenging you and you've been failing
the challenge for years by now.

>There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.

   Then try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting
from your life without referring to "Him" Goo. GO!:
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:06 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>     LOL. I'm *pointing out* bullshit

No, Goo.  You do *not*, ever, "point out".  You are spouting bullshit,
as always.

>>>    I've been trying to get Rudy to explain what he thinks prevents
>>> us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves" for
>>> years and he can't even make the attempt.
>> No, you haven't.
>
>     Yes Rudy,

No, Goo.

> I've been challenging you

No, Goo.  You have not, ever, "challenged" me.  You're a stupid,
illiterate, pig-f.cking cracker, Goo.  I'm a highly educated, degreed
"knowledge worker", Goo.  You, Goo, do not challenge me - you could not,
Goo.

>> There's no "Him", Goo.  That's your fabrication - a lie.
>
>     Then try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting
> from your life without referring to "Him"

No reference, ever, to "Him", Goo.  It's your fabrication, Goo - a lie.
Rudy Canoza - 06 Oct 2008 18:27 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> [cracker bullshit]

No "Him" or "He", Goo.  You made that up.  It's more cracker bullshit.
Hoots - 07 Oct 2008 11:26 GMT
>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
>>> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> "An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
> that entity." - Goo

You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 15:48 GMT
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>> [snip Goo Fuckwit's mangled pseudo-'quotes']
>
> You seem to be pretty focused on one topic there. Any reason why?

Yes, there is.  Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker in the backwoods of Georgia - has been trying to rationalize his
meat-eating to "vegans" and "animal rights activists" for 10 years now.
   For the first six months of those 10 years, he thought he had found
the neatest "trick" to do it.  He wanted to make it out that meat eaters
are "giving life" to livestock - doing them a big favor - and that it
isn't too much sacrifice to ask the animals to die to return the favor.
 There are two big blunders in this.  First, that line of uh, er,
'reasoning' was discredited well over a century ago.  Farmers are not
"doing something nice" for farm animals by breeding them into existence;
it is not a "benefit" to exist rather than never exist.

But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any
"rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any
in killing the livestock animals we consume.  GooFuckwit has been
approaching this from a nonsense perspective, as you would expect from a
pig-f.cking illiterate cracker in backwoods Georgia.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 16:37 GMT
> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
> Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any
> "rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any
> in killing the livestock animals we consume.

The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life
since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...
Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.
You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human
animals even basic minimal conscious awareness, yet if it suits
you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing to nature.
dh@. - 07 Oct 2008 16:38 GMT
>Goo wrote in message news:Cf-dnbKd2MNT63bVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
>Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...

   You wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat. Neither would
the rest of us.

>Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.

    We wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat and none of
your ranting can change that reality.

>You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
>don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
>What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human
>animals even basic minimal conscious awareness,

   That's because by posing as such an idiot he's hoping
to make true misnomer opponents appear to be idiots by
his dishonest supposed association with them.

>yet if it suits you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing
>to nature.

   No nonhuman predators deliberately provide life for the
animals they eat, nor do they deliberately maintain efficient
population sizes for the area, or try to kill humanely, or avoid
killing young, baby and pregnant animals, etc... They don't
observe hunting seasons, and they don't give their prey a
break by not hunting at night...
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 19:17 GMT
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-f.cking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>> Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>     You wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat.

False.

>> Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>> of rant and bluster will change known biological realities.
>
>      We wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat

False.

>> You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly
>> don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     That's because by posing as such an idiot he's hoping
> to make true misnomer opponents

No, Goo.  I am the "true" opponent of animal "rights".  You're an
irrational, illogical, (il)Logic of the Larder fraud - a total fruitcake.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 16:43 GMT
>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores.
> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life...

Utter bullshit analysis.  First of all, "need" can't justify anything.
Secondly, prey animals don't flee or attempt to flee based on any notion
of "rights".

It is completely incoherent to say that an animal has a "right" to its
life against one species but not another.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 17:08 GMT
> >> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> >> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Utter bullshit analysis.  First of all, "need" can't justify anything.

'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..
..
If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms which defines the right to life as follows:

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

> Secondly, prey animals don't flee or attempt to flee based on any notion
> of "rights".

Will to live, liberty and happiness, plus self-preserving instinct.

> It is completely incoherent to say that an animal has a "right" to its
> life against one species but not another.

In nature, animals can and do act to defend their lives against
natural threats - it's a fair, healthy system which works well.
What humans have done is remove any possible chance of
evading the 'predator' who from day one used unnatural force,
there's no escaping the metal fences or bars, and the knife.....
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 17:45 GMT
>>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> or others ..

Eating is not self-defense.

You don't know the English criminal law - you're not a lawyer, and
you've never studied law in any capacity.  It's not relevant here.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 17:53 GMT
> >>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
> >>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Eating is not self-defense.

Lions must eat other animals in order to preserve the physical
integrity of themselves and others, so have the right to act in a
manner that would be otherwise unlawful - as it is in your case.

> You don't know the English criminal law -

I just posted it.  Now you really should JSTFU, you know.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 18:17 GMT
>>>>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical
>>>>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Lions must eat other animals in order to preserve the physical
> integrity of themselves and others

There is no ethical imperative for them to do that.
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 22:58 GMT
>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>
> I just posted it.

You do not know the law at all, and this isn't a legal argument anyway.
 There is no provision of English or any other criminal law that would
allow you to kill another human being in order to eat him, on the
grounds that if you didn't do it you would starve.

You do not know the law.  You know how to massage feet; that's all.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 23:14 GMT
> >> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> allow you to kill another human being in order to eat him, on the
> grounds that if you didn't do it you would starve.

Eating dead humans is normally considered wrong and gross, but
it's regarded as justifiable when done as a last resort -- to survive.
People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?
Rudy Canoza - 07 Oct 2008 23:18 GMT
>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Eating dead humans is normally considered wrong and gross, but
> it's regarded as justifiable when done as a last resort -- to survive.

No, bitch.  We're not talking about the *eating*, you dirty lying slut -
we're talking about killing.

It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.

You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
either one.
pearl - 07 Oct 2008 23:49 GMT
> >>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> No,     We're not talking about the *eating*,  [filth snipped]
> we're talking about killing.

People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?

> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
> eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.

Has it EVER happened, that there should exist such a provision?

> You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
> either one.

You don't know what I do or don't know, you silly clown.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 00:14 GMT
>>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.

People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
"self defense".

>> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
>> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
>> eat him, claiming that your "survival" depends on it.
>
> Has it EVER happened, that there should exist such a provision?

There is no provision for it, contrary to the bullshit you're claiming.
 Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
defense.  Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.

You're completely full of sh.t on this.  There is *no* provision in
English or any other law code that can in any way be seen as parallel to
a lion's "right" to kill some animal to eat it.

>> You do not know the law, and you do not know ethics - not a thing about
>> either one.
>
> You don't know what I do or don't know

I *KNOW* that you do not know the law, stupid extremist "vegan" twat.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 01:00 GMT
{<< Note: "obligatory carnivores" should be "obligate carnivores". }

> >>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
> >>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
> "self defense".

I didn't say that they did.  You're agreeing that it doesn't happen.

> >> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
> >> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> There is no provision for it, contrary to the bullshit you're claiming.

Why would there be a provision for something that doesn't happen?

>   Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
> defense.

People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.
Isn't military spending the highest of all?  How much on Iraq now?

> Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.

In the lion's case it's a matter of do or die.  Not merely a wish..

<ooze snipped>
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 01:33 GMT
> {<< Note: "obligatory carnivores" should be "obligate carnivores". }

Note:  You're a science-illiterate fuckwit.

>>>>>>>> You don't know the English criminal law -
>>>>>>> I just posted it.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I didn't say that they did.

Yes, that's exactly what you were trying to suggest the law allowed, in
your futile effort to come up with some "rights"-based analog to a lion
killing its prey in order to eat.

>>>> It is *NOWHERE* to be found in English law, or the law of any other
>>>> western civilized country, that you may kill someone else in order to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Why would there be a provision for something that doesn't happen?

You're the one who suggested it would be legal, based on some imaginary
belief you had about the law.

>>   Killing someone to eat him, in order to avoid starvation, is not self
>> defense.
>
> People kill each other all the time though as an act of 'self-defence'.

Not for food, you stupid c.nt.  You were trying to suggest some analog
with lions killing prey, and you cooked up some steaming load about
self-defense homicide.

>> Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
>> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
>> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat.
>
> In the lion's case it's a matter of do or die.

It isn't self defense.  It's just what it does, with no concept of
"rights", either its right to hunt or the prey's right not to be killed.

"Necessity", as you wrongly imagine it, does not create a right.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 01:47 GMT
..
> >> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
> >> "self defense".
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> your futile effort to come up with some "rights"-based analog to a lion
> killing its prey in order to eat.

No, no mention by me of humans killing to eat other humans.
That was your mutant deformed monstrous brain-child, ball.

You blabbered: "First of all, "need" can't justify anything."

Now you've admitted  that it can:

"Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."

See?  As in the lion's case, it's a matter of do or die.

But arguing that lions have no justification for killing..?

Somehow I very much doubt anyone agrees with you..
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 02:52 GMT
> ..
>>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No, no mention by me of humans killing to eat other humans.

You suggested lions killing their prey is analogous to humans killing in
self defense.  You said the law allows for killing in self defense.  I
told you that a lion does not kill its prey as a matter of self defense,
and there is no analogue.

> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
> he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
> threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."
>
> See?  As in the lion's case, it's a matter of do or die.

*NOT* self defense.

The analogy collapses in a steaming sh.t pile, just as it started.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 11:50 GMT
> > ..
> >>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> told you that a lion does not kill its prey as a matter of self defense,
> and there is no analogue.

Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others.  As in the case of self-defence.  Both are justifiable actions.

> > "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> > killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *NOT* self defense.

It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.  Needs justifies it.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 15:18 GMT
>>> ..
>>>>>> People do not kill each other *to eat one another* and claim that it was
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> or others.

*NOT* self defense.

You'll never get it done, bitch.  You'll *never* find some legal
analogue for predators killing prey.

>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.

*NOT* self defense.

You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.

You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
predators.  You'll note, you stupid c.nt, that humans do not lose their
rights with respect to other humans if some humans are moral patients,
so that dodge won't work, either.
pearl - 08 Oct 2008 15:43 GMT
..
> > Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
> > or others.
>
> *NOT* self defense.

Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> >>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> *NOT* self defense.

Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.

It was done right from the beginning.  Your denial is hilarious.

> You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
> to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
> predators.

Already coherently explained that a prey animal in nature has
the right and a fair chance to guard his life against non-human
predators by fighting, fleeing, and other avoidance strategies.
Throw away unnatural weapons, and see how well you fare.
Rudy Canoza - 08 Oct 2008 15:51 GMT
> ..
>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

"Need" justifies nothing.

You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
relative to non-human predators, but do relative to humans.  "Need"
means nothing.

>> You just can't do it.  You can't do it because it's not there.
>
> It was done right from the beginning.

It's not there.  It never was there.  You bullshitted some garbage about
"self defense", and it was worthless.

>> You cannot coherently explain why a prey animal could have a "right" not
>> to be killed by humans, but not have such a right relative to non-human
>> predators.
>
> Already coherently explained

*NOT* explained at all, not even incoherently.  You can't do it.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 13:28 GMT
> > ..
> >>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Likewise, preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

Now that it's been established that lions have a justifiable right to
kill by virtue of necessity, explain why you believe that you have
the right to take life, as it has to *nothing* do with threat to your
life, merely your wish to eat 'meat'.  How could you justify that?

> >>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> "Need" justifies nothing.

You:

"Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
he will kill or seriously injure you.  It has to do with a *direct*
threat to your life, not merely your wish to eat."

Need to preserve physical integrity (life) justifies even lethal force.

> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
> relative to non-human predators, but do relative to humans.  "Need"
> means nothing.

For the same reason humans don't hold "rights" against non-human
predators.  You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
best to avoid them.  Humans however, who institute laws designed
to protect rights, can recognise that non-human lives are also due
consideration and therefore protection under the banner of "rights".
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 15:37 GMT
>>> ..
>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Now that it's been established that lions have a justifiable right to
> kill by virtue of necessity,

Ha ha ha ha ha!  No, it hasn't been established, you lying slut.

*NO* one who has seriously examined this - you are a lunatic and by
definition not serious - concludes that lions have a "right" to kill
their prey.

Settled:  humans don't condone non-human predation on prey animals out
of a belief the predators have "rights".

>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Need to preserve physical integrity (life) justifies even lethal force.

No, that's not what is at issue here.  It has *NOTHING* to with "need".
 You simply don't know what you're talking about, and now you're just
fabricating bullshit.

Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
human legal right to self defense.  Humans may not legally kill other
humans in order to eat them, and lions do not kill their prey out of any
moral or legal right to do so.

Your position is lunatic bullshit.

>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> For the same reason humans don't hold "rights" against non-human
> predators.

No - *not* for the same reason, and having nothing to do with "need".
Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.

> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
> best to avoid them.  Humans however, who institute laws designed
> to protect rights, can recognise that non-human lives are also due
> consideration and therefore protection under the banner of "rights".

Nope - not due to rights.  That's just nonsense.

You have wasted everyone's time, once again.  You don't understand one
word of rights theory.  We can well understand why in close to 10 years
of participation here, you have so seldom even attempted to discuss the
ethics of human use of animals, and instead have usually focused your
meager talent on trying to "prove" something about the healthfulness of
meat consumption, all of your "proof" being pseudo-scientific bullshit.
 Slopping together some pseudoscience (some bullshit) about anatomy and
anthropology and epidemiology is actually much easier for you than
trying to do the same with respect to ethics, because you can just do
the c.nt-brained copypasta routine with science-talk that you haven't
read, and *CANNOT* read.  There's very little pseudo-ethical stuff for
you to do your c.nt-brained copypasta routine with, so you've stayed
away from it mostly.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 20:51 GMT
> >>> ..
> >>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha!

No one who writes "Ha ha ha ha ha!" is really laughing, isn't it?

> No, it hasn't been established,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Settled:  humans don't condone non-human predation on prey animals out
> of a belief the predators have "rights".

Everyone does.  *No one* questions non-human predators right
to do what they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.

> >>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> No, that's not what is at issue here.  It has *NOTHING* to with "need".

Yes, it is, and does.  It has **EVERYTHING** to do with NEED.

> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
> human legal right to self defense.

It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.  Need justifies both.

> Humans may not legally kill other
> humans in order to eat them,

That's would be murder, first and foremost.

> and lions do not kill their prey out of any
> moral or legal right to do so.

False.  They also have a right to live.  But that does apply to you.

> Your position is lunatic bullshit.

Not at all.  Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no
right to kill other animals to survive.  You're way out on a limb, ball.

> >> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> >> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No - *not* for the same reason,

For exactly the same reason.  Try telling the lion about your "rights".

> and having nothing to do with "need".
> Need does not enter, in any way, into rights theory.

Of course it does.  No moral or ethical consideration would weigh
against an absolute requirement to eat 'meat' to survive, as the lion.

> > You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
> > predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Nope - not due to rights.  That's just nonsense.

What?  That's just nonsense, ball.  You need diapers, btw.
Rudy Canoza - 09 Oct 2008 20:58 GMT
>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No one who writes "Ha ha ha ha ha!" is really laughing

Sometimes, he is.

>> No, it hasn't been established,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Everyone does.

No one does.

> *No one* questions non-human predators right

False.  Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.

>>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
>>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Yes, it is, and does.

No.  Nothing to do with "need" at all.

>> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
>> human legal right to self defense.
>
> It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.

No analogue.

>> Humans may not legally kill other
>> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> False.

No, true.  Lions do not have rights.  No animal does.

>> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
>
> Not at all.

Fully bullshit.

>>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
>>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Of course it does.

No, not in any way at all.  Rights do not depend theoretically or in any
other way on the rightsholders' "needs".

>>> You've the same 'rights to your life' against non-human
>>> predators as (other) prey animals - you can fight, flee, and do your
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What?

N-o-n-s-e-n-s-e.  Non-human animals do not, and *cannot* have rights.
Your position that animals have or ought to have rights is completely
nonsense.
pearl - 09 Oct 2008 21:43 GMT
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>>> Lions kill prey in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Sometimes, he is.

Who's "he"?  Smartypants.  Rupert.  Always.  Not you.

> >> No, it hasn't been established,
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No one does.

Nonsense.

> > *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what
they have to to survive.  To suggest that is ludicrous.

> False.

*No one*.

> Non-human animals don't have "rights".  They just do what they
> do.  Rights do not enter into it in any way.

The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.

"Hunters" are always claiming that what they do is ecological.

> >>>>>>>>> "Self defense as a justification for homicide refers *only* to
> >>>>>>>>> killing another person in a situation in which, if you don't kill him,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> No.  Nothing to do with "need" at all.

It has everything to do with need.

> >> Settled:  there is no analogy between a lion killing its prey and a
> >> human legal right to self defense.
> >
> > It's likewise preservation of physical integrity.
>
> No analogue.

You've no argument.  Need justifies both.

> >> Humans may not legally kill other
> >> humans in order to eat them,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No, true.  Lions do not have rights.  No animal does.

They have a right to do what they have to to live.  Why do you
have the right to take life, if there's no direct threat to your life?

> >> Your position is lunatic bullshit.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Fully bullshit.

Find -anyone- claiming that non-human predators have no right
to kill other animals to survive.  You're falling off that limb, ball.

> >>>> You just can't do it, lesley.  You cannot come up with a coherent
> >>>> explanation of why prey animals do not hold "rights" to their lives
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >>> predators.
> >> No - *not* for the same reason,

For exactly the same reason.  Try telling the lion about your "rights".

> >> and having nothing to do with "need".
> >> Need does not enter, in any way, into rights