Vegetarian Discussion: FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted As Needed)

FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted As Needed)
Posts: 16

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
2007-08-29 01:57:34 EST
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks and
quotation marks, is Fuckwit's own.



You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
start on this at all:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

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


He claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
utilitarian to Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005


Astonishingly, Fuckwit even fantasizes that he can
"respect" the extinguished, thus non-existent, lives of
dead animals:

I can say that I respect the life of a dead
chicken.

Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006


In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
only interested in the products they yield:

Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006


Another revealing dialogue:

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006


He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
ignore their suffering is an admission that he
*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
products they yield.


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

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

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


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Fuckwit - 03/22/2005


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

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
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.







































Ricky's Babysitter
2007-08-30 17:03:01 EST
On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
> has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
> thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
> have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
> about animals, specifically his belief that animals
> "getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
> in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
> and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.
>
> Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
> usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
> and judge for yourselves.
>
> All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks and
> quotation marks, is Fuckwit's own.
>
> You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
> start on this at all:
>
> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> post my spew as everyone else does.
> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>
> Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
> morally considerable "somethings":
>
> 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
>
> He claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
> "consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
> in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
> as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
> utilitarian to Fuckwit:
>
> It's not out of consideration for porcupines
> that we don't raise them for food. It's because
> they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
> don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
> either, but because they're fairly easy to
> raise.
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>
> Astonishingly, Fuckwit even fantasizes that he can
> "respect" the extinguished, thus non-existent, lives of
> dead animals:
>
> I can say that I respect the life of a dead
> chicken.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006
>
> In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
> lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
> wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
> Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
> ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
> livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
> consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
> of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
> only interested in the products they yield:
>
> Dave:
> I am suggesting that we have no reason to
> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
> wild animals
>
> Fuckwit:
> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
> think of either?
>
> Dave:
> Enlighten me.
>
> Fuckwit:
> Meat. Gravy.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>
> Another revealing dialogue:
>
> Dutch:
> Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
> food decent lives?
>
> Fuckwit:
> Not really.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006
>
> He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
> the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:
>
> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
> because I don't care about them at all, but I
> would just ignore their suffering.
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
> ignore their suffering is an admission that he
> *DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
> products they yield.
>
> He believes they can experience things - loss,
> deprivation, unfairness:
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
> live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
> quality of their lives:
>
> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
> Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
>
> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
> since the odds are infinite against all of us
> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>
> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
> food provides billions of beings with a place in
> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
> some of it.
> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>
> But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
> for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
> for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
> more so, since we provide life for most of the
> animals we kill.
> Fuckwit - 04/20/2002
>
> Life is the benefit that makes all others
> possible.
> Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)
>
> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> most important benefits for any being. Though
> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> animals are completely different things and not
> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> depending on the particular things that they
> experience.
> Fuckwit - 03/22/2005
>
> Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
> to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
> se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
> that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
> earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:
>
> As for whether or not providing them with life
> is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
> no one has ever had a problem with it.
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2003
>
> He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
> the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
> prevent them from being born:
>
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>
> 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
> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
>
> Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters:
>
> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters, and in order
> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
> ignore the things that we know, and that they
> do not (like the fact that they will be
> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
> do that, then they really don't care about the
> animals, but are worried more about their self.
> Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
>
> But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
> about them, about his connection to them, about his
> ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
> to him:
>
> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
> well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
> about things. Even if it were that way, there
> is really no reason for me to encourage life
> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
> of kittens that could get to experience life
> from a cat that I actually care about, and
> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
> least for a little while.
> Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
>
> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
> what life has to offer [to animals].
> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004
>
> Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
> insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
> how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
> ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
> them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
> with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
> interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
> period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
> he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
>
> No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
> "proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
> lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
> to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
> choice that he does.
>
> The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
> No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
> believes everything I have said he believes, as
> supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.




Goo, please EXPLAIN to us why you disagree with yourself about
animals' pre-existent state.





Rudy Canoza
2007-08-30 17:06:38 EST
ricky's babysitter wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
>> has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
>> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
>> thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
>> have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
>> about animals, specifically his belief that animals
>> "getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
>> in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
>> and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.
>>
>> Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
>> usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
>> and judge for yourselves.
>>
>> All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks and
>> quotation marks, is Fuckwit's own.
>>
>> You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
>> start on this at all:
>>
>> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
>> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
>> post my spew as everyone else does.
>> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>>
>> Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>> morally considerable "somethings":
>>
>> 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
>>
>> He claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
>> "consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
>> in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
>> as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
>> utilitarian to Fuckwit:
>>
>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines
>> that we don't raise them for food. It's because
>> they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
>> don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
>> either, but because they're fairly easy to
>> raise.
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>
>> Astonishingly, Fuckwit even fantasizes that he can
>> "respect" the extinguished, thus non-existent, lives of
>> dead animals:
>>
>> I can say that I respect the life of a dead
>> chicken.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006
>>
>> In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
>> lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
>> wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
>> Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
>> ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
>> livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
>> consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
>> of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
>> only interested in the products they yield:
>>
>> Dave:
>> I am suggesting that we have no reason to
>> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
>> wild animals
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
>> think of either?
>>
>> Dave:
>> Enlighten me.
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> Meat. Gravy.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>>
>> Another revealing dialogue:
>>
>> Dutch:
>> Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
>> food decent lives?
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> Not really.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006
>>
>> He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
>> the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
>> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
>> because I don't care about them at all, but I
>> would just ignore their suffering.
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
>> ignore their suffering is an admission that he
>> *DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
>> products they yield.
>>
>> He believes they can experience things - loss,
>> deprivation, unfairness:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
>> live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
>> quality of their lives:
>>
>> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
>> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
>> Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
>>
>> All of that has nothing to do with how many
>> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
>> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
>> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
>> since the odds are infinite against all of us
>> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
>> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>>
>> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
>> food provides billions of beings with a place in
>> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
>> some of it.
>> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>>
>> But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
>> for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
>> for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
>> more so, since we provide life for most of the
>> animals we kill.
>> Fuckwit - 04/20/2002
>>
>> Life is the benefit that makes all others
>> possible.
>> Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)
>>
>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>> animals are completely different things and not
>> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
>> depending on the particular things that they
>> experience.
>> Fuckwit - 03/22/2005
>>
>> Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
>> to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
>> se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
>> that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
>> earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:
>>
>> As for whether or not providing them with life
>> is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
>> no one has ever had a problem with it.
>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2003
>>
>> He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
>> the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
>> prevent them from being born:
>>
>> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
>> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
>> have IMO.
>> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>>
>> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
>> future farm animals [of] living,
>> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>>
>> That approach is illogical, since if it
>> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
>> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
>> getting to have any life at all.
>> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>>
>> 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
>> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
>>
>> Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
>> about their lives is what matters:
>>
>> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
>> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
>> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
>> about their lives is what matters, and in order
>> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
>> ignore the things that we know, and that they
>> do not (like the fact that they will be
>> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
>> do that, then they really don't care about the
>> animals, but are worried more about their self.
>> Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
>>
>> But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
>> about them, about his connection to them, about his
>> ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
>> to him:
>>
>> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
>> well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
>> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
>> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
>> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
>> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
>> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
>> about things. Even if it were that way, there
>> is really no reason for me to encourage life
>> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
>> of kittens that could get to experience life
>> from a cat that I actually care about, and
>> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
>> least for a little while.
>> Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
>>
>> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
>> what life has to offer [to animals].
>> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004
>>
>> Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>> insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>> how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>> ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>> them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
>> with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
>> interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
>> period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
>> he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
>>
>> No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
>> "proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
>> lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
>> to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
>> choice that he does.
>>
>> The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
>> No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
>> believes everything I have said he believes, as
>> supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
>
>
>
>
> Rudy, please EXPLAIN

ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
off.

Bawl
2007-08-30 17:23:10 EST
On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza homo dwarf
gurgled<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> ricky's babysitter wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:

<Goo's gurgling snipped>

>
> > Rudy, please EXPLAIN
>
> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
> off.


Goo EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself on animals' pre-existent
state.

We know you can't so maybe you can EXPLAIN why you can't.





Rudy Canoza
2007-08-30 17:34:00 EST
fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
> On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
>> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
>> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
>> off.
>
>
> EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself

I don't.


> animals' pre-existent state.

GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
2007-08-31 14:14:35 EST
On Aug 30, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>
> > On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
> >>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
> >> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
> >> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
> >> off.
>
> > EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself
>
> I don't.
>
> > animals' pre-existent state.
>
> GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
> pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.



Yet it was you who originally supposed the pre-existent state.

How do you EXPLAIN that Goo?



Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 14:25:15 EST
lying fuck scum lied:
> On Aug 30, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>>>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
>>>> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
>>>> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
>>>> off.
>>> EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself
>> I don't.
>>
>>> animals' pre-existent state.
>> GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
>> pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.
>
>
>
> Yet it was you who originally supposed the pre-existent state.

No. GooFuckwit did. It's implicit in his bullshit:

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

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

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

GooFuckwit "supposed" it in his blabberings,
ronnnnnnie. I identified it and responded to it.
"Pre-existence" for animals is only implied by what the
stupid fat queer cracker GooFuckwit - your buddy - has
written. It is his problem, not mine.

Dutch
2007-08-31 14:58:35 EST
Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> On Aug 30, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>>>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
>>>> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
>>>> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
>>>> off.
>>> EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself
>> I don't.
>>
>>> animals' pre-existent state.
>> GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
>> pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.
>
>
>
> Yet it was you who originally supposed the pre-existent state.
>
> How do you EXPLAIN that Goo?

The notion that *life itself* is a benefit that we impart onto animals
when we raise them as food begs the question of a pre-existent state.
Salt correctly made this observation. In order for coming into the state
of existence as we know it to be seen as a benefit there must have been
a prior state which is improved upon by existence as we know it, just as
coming into money improving one's financial state implies a pre-existing
worse financial state.

The only logical conclusion is that life itself cannot be seen as a
benefit, and that is consistent with our belief that there is no such
thing as "pre-existence".

Are getting any of this, or do you even care about the facts?




Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 15:03:11 EST
Dutch wrote:
> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
>>>>> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
>>>>> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
>>>>> off.
>>>> EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>>> animals' pre-existent state.
>>> GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
>>> pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet it was you who originally supposed the pre-existent state.
>>
>> How do you EXPLAIN that Goo?
>
> The notion that *life itself* is a benefit that we impart onto animals
> when we raise them as food begs the question of a pre-existent state.
> Salt correctly made this observation. In order for coming into the state
> of existence as we know it to be seen as a benefit there must have been
> a prior state which is improved upon by existence as we know it, just as
> coming into money improving one's financial state implies a pre-existing
> worse financial state.
>
> The only logical conclusion is that life itself cannot be seen as a
> benefit, and that is consistent with our belief that there is no such
> thing as "pre-existence".
>
> Are getting any of this, or do you even care about the facts?

The lying community college fuck scum ronnnnnie gets
it. He knows that it was GooFuckwit who introduced the
concept of "pre-existence", by implication. It was
implicit in everything he wrote about non-existent
animals experiencing "loss", "denial", "deprivation"
and "unfairness".

Guppy The Corpse Pumper
2007-08-31 15:20:50 EST
On Aug 31, 1:03 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >> On Aug 30, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
>
> >>>> On Aug 30, 3:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>> fat pudgy queer ronnnnie hamilton whined:
> >>>>>> On Aug 28, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rudy, please EXPLAIN
> >>>>> ronnnnnie, you fat pasty-faced queer, explain why you
> >>>>> do the constant and sophomoric nym-shifting. Then fuck
> >>>>> off.
> >>>> EXPLAIN why you disagree with yourself
> >>> I don't.
>
> >>>> animals' pre-existent state.
> >>> GooFuckwit is the only one who believes in animal
> >>> pre-existence. Take it up with him, queer.
>
> >> Yet it was you who originally supposed the pre-existent state.
>
> >> How do you EXPLAIN that Goo?
>
> > The notion that *life itself* is a benefit that we impart onto animals
> > when we raise them as food begs the question of a pre-existent state.
> > Salt correctly made this observation. In order for coming into the state
> > of existence as we know it to be seen as a benefit there must have been
> > a prior state which is improved upon by existence as we know it, just as
> > coming into money improving one's financial state implies a pre-existing
> > worse financial state.
>
> > The only logical conclusion is that life itself cannot be seen as a
> > benefit, and that is consistent with our belief that there is no such
> > thing as "pre-existence".
>
> > Are getting any of this, or do you even care about the facts?
>
> The lying community college fuck scum ronnnnnie gets
> it. He knows that it was GooFuckwit who introduced the
> concept of "pre-existence", by implication. It was
> implicit in everything he wrote about non-existent
> animals experiencing "loss", "denial", "deprivation"
> and "unfairness".



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


Poor stupid Goo.

Unable to EXPLAIN why he no longer agrees with himself about "pre-
existence" Goo is attempting to distance himself from the term and
pretend he never used it at all.







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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