Vegetarian Discussion: GooFuckwit And Animal "pre-existence"

GooFuckwit And Animal "pre-existence"
Posts: 148

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 14:30:30 EST
Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
implied by what he has written:

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

These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
"denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
now in the real world, and since Goo says they
"...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
"pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.

"Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.

Shrubkiller
2007-08-31 14:43:36 EST
On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
> implied by what he has written:



Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence. Now you
disagree with yourself and can't understand why nor can you explain
why to the rest of us.

Since you can't explain any of it, you thought the best thing to do
would be to hang the "pre-existence" thing on Dave.

Watching you grunting and straining and giving yourself a hernia while
trying to move the goalposts is hilarious Goo.

You are one funny bunny.








>
> 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
>
> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
> Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
> experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
> "pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
>
> "Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.



Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 14:54:16 EST
I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied:
> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>> implied by what he has written:
>
>
>
> it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.

No. It was GooFuckwit.

>
>> 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
>>
>> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
>> Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
>> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
>> experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
>> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
>> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
>> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
>> "pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
>> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
>>
>> "Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.
>
>

Guppy The Corpse Pumper
2007-08-31 15:18:32 EST
On Aug 31, 12:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie
>
> lying fuck scum lied:
>
> > On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
> >> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
> >> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
> >> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
> >> implied by what he has written:
>
> > it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
>
> No. It was GooFuckwit.



You are a LIAR Goo.



>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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
>
> >> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
> >> Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
> >> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
> >> experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
> >> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
> >> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
> >> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
> >> "pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
> >> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
>
> >> "Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Dutch
2007-08-31 15:38:30 EST
shrubkiller wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>> implied by what he has written:
>
>
>
> Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.

Pre-existence was introduced by the author Henry Salt. He correctly says
that the notion must be considered when analyzing "The Logic of the
Larder", because the LoL implies it. If, as we all claim to believe,
that the idea of pre-existence is nonsense, then it becomes a problem to
determine for whom life itself is a benefit.

Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 15:56:51 EST
I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied:
> On Aug 31, 12:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie
>>
>> lying fuck scum lied:
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>>>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>>>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>>>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>>>> implied by what he has written:
>>> it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
>> No. It was GooFuckwit.
>
>
>
> You are a LIAR Rudy.

No, little lying community college perennial fuck scum
ronnnnnie. GooFuckwit introduced the idea of
"pre-existence". I merely supplied the label, since he
forgot to give it one.

This problem of "pre-existence" - what a fucking joke!
- is GooFuckwit's problem, not mine. You /know/ it,
ronnnnnie, you sophomoric fuck scum.


>>
>>>> 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
>>>> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
>>>> Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
>>>> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
>>>> experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
>>>> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
>>>> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
>>>> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
>>>> "pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
>>>> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
>>>> "Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.

Guppy The Corpse Pumper
2007-08-31 16:00:22 EST
On Aug 31, 1:38 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
> >> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
> >> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
> >> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
> >> implied by what he has written:
>
> > Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
>
> Pre-existence was introduced by the author Henry Salt. He correctly says
> that the notion must be considered when analyzing "The Logic of the
> Larder", because the LoL implies it. If, as we all claim to believe,
> that the idea of pre-existence is nonsense, then it becomes a problem to
> determine for whom life itself is a benefit.



Baby Goo we are talking about the introduction of "pre-existence" to
NEWSGROUPS.

You are as obtuse as Goo.


Guppy The Corpse Pumper
2007-08-31 16:04:13 EST
On Aug 31, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie
>
> lying fuck scum lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 12:54 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >> I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie
>
> >> lying fuck scum lied:
>
> >>> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
> >>>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
> >>>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
> >>>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
> >>>> implied by what he has written:
> >>> it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
> >> No. It was GooFuckwit.
>
> > You are a LIAR Rudy.
>
> No, little lying community college perennial fuck scum
> ronnnnnie. GooFuckwit introduced the idea of
> "pre-existence". I merely supplied the label, since he
> forgot to give it one.



You posts clearly show YOU babbling about pre-existence and clearly
show you believe in it.

Now you don't but you can't EXPLAIN why you now disagree with
yourself.

So now your inability to EXPLAIN yourself coherently and intelligently
has caused you to try to divorce yourself from pre-existence entirely
by saying "it was all Dave's idea."

You are so transparent Goo. It's like you're made of Saran Wrap.









> This problem of "pre-existence" - what a fucking joke!
> - is GooFuckwit's problem, not mine. You /know/ it,
> ronnnnnie, you sophomoric fuck scum.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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
> >>>> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
> >>>> Fuckwit: he believes they can experience a loss, be
> >>>> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
> >>>> experience "unfairness". Since the animals don't exist
> >>>> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
> >>>> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
> >>>> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
> >>>> "pre-exist": they're sitting around somewhere before
> >>>> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
> >>>> "Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, not mine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 16:08:36 EST
Dutch wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>>> implied by what he has written:
>>
>>
>>
>> Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
>
> Pre-existence was introduced by the author Henry Salt. He correctly says
> that the notion must be considered when analyzing "The Logic of the
> Larder", because the LoL implies it. If, as we all claim to believe,
> that the idea of pre-existence is nonsense, then it becomes a problem to
> determine for whom life itself is a benefit.

Stupid ronnnnnnie knows it was GooFuckwit; he's just
taking a dump. What a bizarre "hook-up" between
ronnnnnie and GooFuckwit! These two guys can't stop
blowing one another.

ronnnnnnnie posts from a computer in the school library
at Medicine Hat Community College in Alberta. He has
been posting to usenet for 11 years
(http://groups.google.com/group/can.newprod/msg/0bab4fc0056dcdab).
That puts him in his late 20s at the youngest, most
likely well into his 30s. What a pathetic waste of a
life - so unproductive he can't afford a computer and
is stuck using one at the library of a backwater
community college (from which he'll never apparently
graduate.) Did you see his excuse for all the
nym-shifting? He says it's to get around Google
Groups' posting limit. I know for certain that Google
Groups allows 30 or so posts a day, but pathetic fuck
scum ronnnnnnie changes his nym from one post to the next.

Rudy Canoza
2007-08-31 16:10:07 EST
I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied:
> On Aug 31, 1:38 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> lying fuck scum lied:
>>> On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>>>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>>>> considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>>>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>>>> implied by what he has written:
>>> Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence.
>> Pre-existence was introduced by the author Henry Salt. He correctly says
>> that the notion must be considered when analyzing "The Logic of the
>> Larder", because the LoL implies it. If, as we all claim to believe,
>> that the idea of pre-existence is nonsense, then it becomes a problem to
>> determine for whom life itself is a benefit.
>
>
>
> Dutch we are talking about the introduction of "pre-existence" to
> NEWSGROUPS.

It was GooFuckwit.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


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