Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison And His Failed Attempt At Moving The Goalpost

Fuckwit David Harrison And His Failed Attempt At Moving The Goalpost
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-16 15:01:51 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, the ignorant cracker of Lake
Lanier, GA wrote:

"You need to explain why existing beings don't benefit
from their existence."

No, Fuckwit, no one needs to explain that, because that
has never been the issue. The issue always and *ONLY*
has been your absurd, fuckwitted cracker insistence
that non-existent livestock "benefit" by coming into
existence, and the stupid, fuckwitted implications you
draw from that concerning the desire by "aras" to see
livestock go extinct. Here are some of the statements
that PROVE, beyond doubt, that you *ALWAYS* and *ONLY*
were talking about non-existent livestock, Fuckwit:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000


Each and every one of those statements reflect your
thinking about the issue, Fuckwit, and not one of them
was a "mistake" in terminology, or any other form of
mistake. They are your thoughts on the topic, Fuckwit,
and they conclusively prove that you are and always
were talking about UNBORN farm animals, Fuckwit, not
existing farm animals.

You fucking ignorant incompetent cocksucker.

Sgt. Giggles Of The Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron
2007-07-16 16:06:56 EST
On Jul 16, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, the ignorant cracker of Lake
>
> Lanier, GA wrote:
>
> "You need to explain why existing beings don't benefit
> from their existence."
>
> No, Fuckwit, no one needs to explain that, because that
> has never been the issue. The issue always and *ONLY*
> has been your absurd, fuckwitted cracker insistence
> that non-existent livestock "benefit" by coming into
> existence, and the stupid, fuckwitted implications you
> draw from that concerning the desire by "aras" to see
> livestock go extinct. Here are some of the statements
> that PROVE, beyond doubt, that you *ALWAYS* and *ONLY*
> were talking about non-existent livestock, Fuckwit:
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> Each and every one of those statements reflect your
> thinking about the issue, Fuckwit, and not one of them
> was a "mistake" in terminology, or any other form of
> mistake. They are your thoughts on the topic, Fuckwit,
> and they conclusively prove that you are and always
> were talking about UNBORN farm animals, Fuckwit, not
> existing farm animals.
>
> You fucking ignorant incompetent cocksucker.



Goo, this wouldn't be your lame attempt to deflect attention away from
the "19 challenges" thread would it?



2007-07-16 19:37:17 EST
Run out of meds?


Bill Kiene
2007-07-21 00:51:15 EST
Heh Rudy,

Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.

Seriously, its too bad that people like you can't be removed from these
wonderful news groups.

Two of the best news groups I have found so far are this Boating (did you
get that Rudy) one and the RV one that also has lots of wonderful people and
a few "whackos" too.

--
Crazy Bill


"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:zgPmi.8229$Od7.6990@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Fuckwit David Harrison, the ignorant cracker of Lake Lanier, GA wrote:
>
> "You need to explain why existing beings don't benefit from their
> existence."
>
> No, Fuckwit, no one needs to explain that, because that has never been the
> issue. The issue always and *ONLY* has been your absurd, fuckwitted
> cracker insistence that non-existent livestock "benefit" by coming into
> existence, and the stupid, fuckwitted implications you draw from that
> concerning the desire by "aras" to see livestock go extinct. Here are
> some of the statements that PROVE, beyond doubt, that you *ALWAYS* and
> *ONLY* were talking about non-existent livestock, Fuckwit:
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
>
> Each and every one of those statements reflect your thinking about the
> issue, Fuckwit, and not one of them was a "mistake" in terminology, or any
> other form of mistake. They are your thoughts on the topic, Fuckwit, and
> they conclusively prove that you are and always were talking about UNBORN
> farm animals, Fuckwit, not existing farm animals.
>
> You fucking ignorant incompetent cocksucker.



Rudy Canoza
2007-07-21 00:58:08 EST
Bill Kiene wrote:
> Heh Rudy,
>
> Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
> to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.
>
> Seriously, its too bad that people like you can't be removed from these
> wonderful news groups.

That's just life, eh, billeeeeeeeee? Here I am, and
you'll take it and like it. Heh heh heh...

Shrubkiller
2007-07-21 14:26:33 EST
On Jul 20, 10:58 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Bill Kiene wrote:
> > Heh Rudy,
>
> > Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
> > to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.
>
> > Seriously, its too bad that people like you can't be removed from these
> > wonderful news groups.
>
> That's just life, eh, billeeeeeeeee? Here I am, and
> you'll take it and like it. Heh heh heh...



It's just more proof (as if we needed any more) that you are a total
LOSER Goo.




D*@.
2007-07-23 17:03:48 EST
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:51:15 GMT, "Bill Kiene" <billkiene@kiene.com> wrote:

>Heh Rudy,
>
>Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
>to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.

Goo argues in favor of the gross misnomer "animal rights" frequently
in some of the other groups.

>Seriously, its too bad that people like you can't be removed from these
>wonderful news groups.

Yes.

>Two of the best news groups I have found so far are this Boating (did you
>get that Rudy) one and the RV one that also has lots of wonderful people and
>a few "whackos" too.

Goo is a whacko for sure, but "aras" in general are an absurd bunch.

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-23 17:29:05 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always and a lifelong failure, lied:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:51:15 GMT, "Bill Kiene" <billkiene@kiene.com> wrote:
>
>> Heh Rudy,
>>
>> Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
>> to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.
>
> Rudy argues in favor of the gross misnomer "animal rights"

No. Rudy points out that you are an "animal rights
activist" with a weird agenda.

D*@.
2007-07-24 15:33:35 EST
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Goo lied:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:51:15 GMT, "Bill Kiene" <billkiene@kiene.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Heh Rudy,
>>>
>>> Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
>>> to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.
>>
>> Goo argues in favor of the gross misnomer "animal rights" frequently
>>in some of the other groups.
>
>No.

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

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

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

"if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

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

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"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

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-24 15:38:06 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched and a
lifelong loser, lied:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Rudy Canoza set Fuckwit straight:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched and a lifelong loser, lied:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:51:15 GMT, "Bill Kiene" <billkiene@kiene.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heh Rudy,
>>>>
>>>> Where the "fuckwit" is the boating stuff in this message? I think you need
>>>> to motate over to the PETA newsgroup? They would love you.
>>> Rudy argues in favor of the gross misnomer "animal rights" frequently
>>> in some of the other groups.
>> No.
>
> [Fuckwit's lying]

I never argued in favor of "ar", Fuckwit, but *YOU* do.

You tried to move the goalpost, Fuckwit, and you
failed, because once *again* I stopped you.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron