Vegetarian Discussion: The Essential Fuckwit David Harrison Stupidity And Absurity And Sophomoric Lameness

The Essential Fuckwit David Harrison Stupidity And Absurity And Sophomoric Lameness
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-23 03:08:25 EST
Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
work.

The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."

Rupert
2008-07-23 04:57:16 EST
On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
> that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
> Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
> work.
>
> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."

You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-23 10:50:33 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
>> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
>> that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>> Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
>> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
>> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
>> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
>> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
>> work.
>>
>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
>> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
>> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
>> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."
>
> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.

I can and have.

Rupert
2008-07-23 17:51:02 EST
On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself.  He
> >> likes "meat...gravy."  "aras" confront him with a truth
> >> that Fuckwit cannot address:  that Fuckwit's
> >> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
> >>   Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
> >> he can't.  Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
> >> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
> >> by...non-existent animals.  It falls completely flat,
> >> because a) it's patently absurd;  b) it has already
> >> been demolished, over a century ago;  and c) Fuckwit is
> >> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
> >> work.
>
> >> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
> >> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
> >> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
> >> well-being.  He just wants "meat...gravy."
>
> > You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
>
> I can and have.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Show us where.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-23 18:28:31 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
>>>> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
>>>> that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
>>>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>>>> Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
>>>> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
>>>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
>>>> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
>>>> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
>>>> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
>>>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
>>>> work.
>>>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
>>>> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
>>>> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
>>>> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."
>>> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
>> I can and have.
>
> Show us where.

Thousands of posts, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and
talk.politics.animals, going back to 1999. Browse around a bit.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-23 22:05:30 EST
On Jul 24, 8:28 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself.  He
> >>>> likes "meat...gravy."  "aras" confront him with a truth
> >>>> that Fuckwit cannot address:  that Fuckwit's
> >>>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
> >>>>   Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
> >>>> he can't.  Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
> >>>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
> >>>> by...non-existent animals.  It falls completely flat,
> >>>> because a) it's patently absurd;  b) it has already
> >>>> been demolished, over a century ago;  and c) Fuckwit is
> >>>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
> >>>> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
> >>>> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
> >>>> well-being.  He just wants "meat...gravy."
> >>> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
> >> I can and have.
>
> > Show us where.
>
> Thousands of posts, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and
> talk.politics.animals, going back to 1999.  Browse around a bit.-



Humor us Boobs and re-post one.........if you can find one.



Rupert
2008-07-24 05:07:58 EST
On Jul 24, 8:28 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
> >>>> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
> >>>> that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
> >>>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
> >>>> Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
> >>>> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
> >>>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
> >>>> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
> >>>> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
> >>>> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
> >>>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
> >>>> work.
> >>>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
> >>>> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
> >>>> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
> >>>> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."
> >>> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
> >> I can and have.
>
> > Show us where.
>
> Thousands of posts, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and
> talk.politics.animals, going back to 1999. Browse around a bit.

I've read thousands of your posts. I'm not going to read your entire
posting history. I haven't seen any credible critique of the position
people who identify as animal rights advocates take regarding how we
should treat nonhuman animals. You direct me to a post which you think
contains such a credible critique.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-24 13:21:23 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:28 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Fuckwit is only interested in animals for himself. He
>>>>>> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
>>>>>> that Fuckwit cannot address: that Fuckwit's
>>>>>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>>>>>> Fuckwit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
>>>>>> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
>>>>>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
>>>>>> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
>>>>>> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
>>>>>> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) Fuckwit is
>>>>>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
>>>>>> Fuckwit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
>>>>>> Fuckwit does not care and never cared about animals'
>>>>>> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."
>>>>> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
>>>> I can and have.
>>> Show us where.
>> Thousands of posts, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and
>> talk.politics.animals, going back to 1999. Browse around a bit.
>
> I've read thousands of your posts.

No, you haven't, and the few you've read you didn't read carefully.

I have elaborated at length on why "ar" is bullshit. You are
insignificant flea shit, not worth more time than it takes to smack you
around. It is a waste of my valuable time to re-elaborate the fatal
flaws of "ar" to you, because you're an ideologically rigid and
dishonest extremist. My only engagement with you here is to fuck you over.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


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