Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwitted Rupie

Fuckwitted Rupie
Posts: 9

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
2008-07-31 01:46:55 EST
rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."

But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.

"Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
soft fruit can't do it. That's because he's incoherent. Psychotics
often are.

D*@.
2008-07-31 14:25:26 EST
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>
>But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.

Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
"state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
Goo.

>He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>
>"Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>soft fruit can't do it.

You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
a life of positive value is never better than not having the
experience. GO:

(Prediction: the Goober can not explain)

>That's because he's incoherent. Psychotics
>often are.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-31 18:49:52 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia,
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
>> rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>> animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>> it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>
>> But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>> implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>> but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>
> Obviously Rudy he feels it's better that they do experience
> those lives than that they don't,

Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better". It's
nonsense. He can't give any sense in which it's better.


>> He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>
>> "Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>> define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>> soft fruit can't do it.
>
> You do it Rudy. Try explaining why you think experiencing
> a life of positive value is never better than not having the
> experience.

I've explained that hundreds of times.

Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
bullshit. First of all, it's just wretched writing. Secondly, it's
bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
livestock. *ALL* you care about is that they exist, and you get to
consume them. This is not in dispute.

D*@.
2008-08-04 17:57:23 EST
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>
>>>But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>
>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>"state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>Goo.
>
>Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".

What has been demonstrated is that you can't comprehend
what he means by it Goober, NOT that he can't give any
meaning.

>It's nonsense.

LOL! Only to someone who can't comprehend Goob, so
of course it necessarily must be to you who are clueless.

>He can't give any sense in which it's better.

He explained that he feels it's better for them to have
the experience of a decent life of positive value, than to
not live at all Goo. What you're incapable of comprehending
is WHY he feels that way because you don't see how life
could be worth living for anything, including yourself:

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

Now it's time for you to completely fail your own challenge
Goober. The challenge now put to you, is to attempt explaining
in which sense you believe it is NOT better for you to be
experiencing life. GO:

(Correct prediction: Goo has outstupided himself yet
again, and is defeated by his own challenge which he
is afraid to attempt to meet.)

>>>He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>>
>>>"Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>>>define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>>>soft fruit can't do it.
>>
>> You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
>>a life of positive value is never better than not having the
>>experience. GO:
>>
>>(Prediction: the Goober can not explain)
>
>I've explained that hundreds of times.

LOL!!! You have NEVER explained it Goober, because you can
not. Again, for the third time at least in this thread I challenge you to
try meeting your own challenge, and try explaining how you think
pre-existent "entities" prevent your existence from being better than
not existing. Go Goober, GO!!!:

>Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
>bullshit.

Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:

>First of all, it's just wretched writing.

Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:

>Secondly, it's
>bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
>livestock.

Try explaining how you think whether or not I care about
livestock has any impact on the value of life TO THEM
Goober. GO:

(Correct prediction: the Goober will fail to even attempt any
of the challenges put to him here, because he is by far too
clueless and inept...too inept to meet even his own challenges.)

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-05 00:24:40 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, monstrously stupid pig-fucking cracker,
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, monstrously stupid pig-fucking cracker, lied and presented no challenge:

No "pointing out".


>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>> animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>> it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>>
>>>> But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>> implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>> but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>> those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>> "state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>> somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>> it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>> supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>> Goo.
>> Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>
> What has been demonstrated is

That rupie can't give any meaning to "better".



>> It's nonsense.
>
> LOL! Only to

It's nonsense.


>> He can't give any sense in which it's better.
>
> He explained that he feels it's better

No, rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.

Try to keep up, pig-fucker.

D*@.
2008-08-05 10:15:40 EST
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Clueless Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:57:23 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>>>animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>>>it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>>>
>>>>>But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>>>implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>>>but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>>>those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>>>"state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>>>somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>>>it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>>>supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>
>> What has been demonstrated is that you can't comprehend
>>what he means by it Goober, NOT that he can't give any
>>meaning.
>
>That rupie can't give any meaning to "better".

He gave meaning that you can't comprehend Goober,
because you can't comprehend any meaning to it at all
even when attempting to use the word yourself.

>>>It's nonsense.
>>
>> LOL! Only to someone who can't comprehend Goob, so
>>of course it necessarily must be to you who are clueless.
>
>It's nonsense.

Only to the clueless, Goo.

>>>He can't give any sense in which it's better.
>>
>> He explained that he feels it's better for them to have
>>the experience of a decent life of positive value, than to
>>not live at all Goo. What you're incapable of comprehending
>>is WHY he feels that way because you don't see how life
>>could be worth living for anything, including yourself:
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off" - Goo
>>
>>Now it's time for you to completely fail your own challenge
>>Goober. The challenge now put to you, is to attempt explaining
>>in which sense you believe it is NOT better for you to be
>>experiencing life. GO:
>>
>>(Correct prediction: Goo has outstupided himself yet
>>again, and is defeated by his own challenge which he
>>is afraid to attempt to meet.)
>
>No

PREDICTION PROVEN CORRECT!

>, rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.

Goober, what he said was:

"it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."

>>>>>He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>>>>>define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>>>>>soft fruit can't do it.
>>>>
>>>> You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
>>>>a life of positive value is never better than not having the
>>>>experience. GO:
>>>>
>>>>(Prediction: the Goober can not explain)
>>>
>>>I've explained that hundreds of times.
>>
>> LOL!!! You have NEVER explained it Goober, because you can
>>not. Again, for the third time at least in this thread I challenge you to
>>try meeting your own challenge, and try explaining how you think
>>pre-existent "entities" prevent your existence from being better than
>>not existing. Go Goober, GO!!!:
>>
>>>Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
>>>bullshit.
>>
>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>
>>>First of all, it's just wretched writing.
>>
>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>
>>>Secondly, it's
>>>bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
>>>livestock.
>>
>> Try explaining how you think whether or not I care about
>>livestock has any impact on the value of life TO THEM
>>Goober. GO:
>>
>>(Correct prediction: the Goober will fail to even attempt any
>>of the challenges put to him here, because he is by far too
>>clueless and inept...too inept to meet even his own challenges.)

PREDICTION PROVEN CORRECT!

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-05 15:03:01 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, sweaty dirty *fat* pig-fucking cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, sweaty dirty *fat* pig-fucking cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, sweaty dirty *fat* pig-fucking cracker - lied and presented no challenge:

No "pointing out".

>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>>>> animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>>>> it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>>>> implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>>>> but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>>>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>>>> those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>>>> "state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>>>> somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>>>> it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>>>> supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>>>> Goo.
>>>> Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>> What has been demonstrated is that you can't comprehend
>>> what he means by it Goober, NOT that he can't give any
>>> meaning.
>> That rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>
> He gave meaning

He gave no meaning to it.

In fact, Goo, he accepted *your* fuckwitted, wrong, cracker, pig-fucker
meaning: that it is better for the animals themselves.


>>>> It's nonsense.
>>> LOL! Only to someone who can't comprehend Goob, so
>>> of course it necessarily must be to you who are clueless.
>> It's nonsense.
>
> Only

Yes, only nonsense.


>>>> He can't give any sense in which it's better.
>>> He explained that he feels it's better for them to have
>>> the experience of a decent life of positive value, than to
>>> not live at all Goo. What you're incapable of comprehending
>>> is WHY he feels that way because you don't see how life
>>> could be worth living for anything, including yourself:
>>>
>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>> not make them better off" - Goo
>>>
>>> Now it's time for you to completely fail your own challenge
>>> Goober. The challenge now put to you, is to attempt explaining
>>> in which sense you believe it is NOT better for you to be
>>> experiencing life. GO:
>>>
>>> (Correct prediction:
>> No, rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.
>>
>> Try to keep up, pig-fucker.
>
> PREDICTION

No prediction.


>> , rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.
>
> Rudy, what he said was:
>
> "it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."

Goo, you stupid pig-fucking cracker: I asked him "better for whom or
what", and he refused to answer. I then asked, "better for you", and he
said no.

You can't read, Goo. You're stupid, and you fuck pigs, and you can't read.


>>>>>> He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>>>>>> define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>>>>>> soft fruit can't do it.
>>>>> You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
>>>>> a life of positive value is never better than not having the
>>>>> experience. GO:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Prediction: the Goober can not explain)
>>>> I've explained that hundreds of times.
>>> LOL!!! You have NEVER explained it Goober, because you can
>>> not. Again, for the third time at least in this thread I challenge you to
>>> try meeting your own challenge, and try explaining how you think
>>> pre-existent "entities" prevent your existence from being better than
>>> not existing. Go Goober, GO!!!:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
>>>> bullshit.
>>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>>
>>>> First of all, it's just wretched writing.
>>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>>
>>>> Secondly, it's
>>>> bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
>>>> livestock.
>>> Try explaining how you think whether or not I care about
>>> livestock has any impact on the value of life TO THEM
>>> Goober. GO:
>>>
>>> (Correct prediction: the Goober will fail to even attempt any
>>> of the challenges put to him here, because he is by far too
>>> clueless and inept...too inept to meet even his own challenges.)
>
> PREDICTION

No prediction. You bullshitted.

D*@.
2008-08-06 09:36:25 EST
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Goo lied, and lied...:

>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:15:40 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Clueless Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:57:23 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>>>>>animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>>>>>it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>>>>>implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>>>>>but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>>>>>those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>>>>>"state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>>>>>somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>>>>>it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>>>>>supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>>>
>>>> What has been demonstrated is that you can't comprehend
>>>>what he means by it Goober, NOT that he can't give any
>>>>meaning.
>>>
>>>That rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>
>> He gave meaning that you can't comprehend Goober,
>>because you can't comprehend any meaning to it at all
>>even when attempting to use the word yourself.
>
>He gave no meaning to it.

You can't conceive of any meaning to it, even when you
use the word yourself Goo. If you think you can, try explaining
what meaning you think you can comprehend. Go:

(Correct prediction again: The Goober can't do it.)

>In fact, Goo, he accepted *your* fuckwitted, wrong, cracker, pig-fucker
>meaning:

LOL!!! First you say he gave no meaning, and then you
idiotically say the meaning he accepted was wrong. You
certainly do suck at this, Goo.

>that it is better for the animals themselves.

That particular meaning challenges you to explain how
you think anything to do with pre-existence prevents
existing entities from benefitting from their existence. Try
explaining it now Goo. GO:

(Correct prediction again: The Goober can't do it.)

>>>>>It's nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Only to someone who can't comprehend Goob, so
>>>>of course it necessarily must be to you who are clueless.
>>>
>>>It's nonsense.
>>
>> Only to the clueless, Goo.
>
>Yes, only nonsense.

LOL!!! It's only nonsense to stupid people, Goo.

>>>>>He can't give any sense in which it's better.
>>>>
>>>> He explained that he feels it's better for them to have
>>>>the experience of a decent life of positive value, than to
>>>>not live at all Goo. What you're incapable of comprehending
>>>>is WHY he feels that way because you don't see how life
>>>>could be worth living for anything, including yourself:
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>not make them better off" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>Now it's time for you to completely fail your own challenge
>>>>Goober. The challenge now put to you, is to attempt explaining
>>>>in which sense you believe it is NOT better for you to be
>>>>experiencing life. GO:
>>>>
>>>>(Correct prediction: Goo has outstupided himself yet
>>>>again, and is defeated by his own challenge which he
>>>>is afraid to attempt to meet.)
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> PREDICTION PROVEN CORRECT!
>
>No prediction.

The prediction which was predicted to be correct, was
proven correct by YOU Goo. I challenge you to try to
change the current state of affairs by trying to meet the
challenge, but you will only fail again, Goo. Fail now--GO:

>>>, rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.
>>
>> Goober, what he said was:
>>
>>"it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>
>Goo, you stupid pig-fucking cracker: I asked him "better for whom or
>what", and he refused to answer.

You had already proven yourself too stupid to comprehend,
Goo. If you think you can comprehend, then accept the challenge
which is constantly before you and try to explain. Go:

(Correct prediction again: The Goober can't do it.)

>I then asked, "better for you", and he said no.

It's not better for you either Goo. It can't be better for you veg*ns.
You get a big DUH! for that one, Goober.

>>>>>>>He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>>>>>>>define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>>>>>>>soft fruit can't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
>>>>>>a life of positive value is never better than not having the
>>>>>>experience. GO:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(Prediction: the Goober can not explain)
>>>>>
>>>>>I've explained that hundreds of times.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You have NEVER explained it Goober, because you can
>>>>not. Again, for the third time at least in this thread I challenge you to
>>>>try meeting your own challenge, and try explaining how you think
>>>>pre-existent "entities" prevent your existence from being better than
>>>>not existing. Go Goober, GO!!!:
>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
>>>>>bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>>>
>>>>>First of all, it's just wretched writing.
>>>>
>>>> Try thinking of a better way to express it Goo. GO:
>>>>
>>>>>Secondly, it's
>>>>>bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
>>>>>livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Try explaining how you think whether or not I care about
>>>>livestock has any impact on the value of life TO THEM
>>>>Goober. GO:
>>>>
>>>>(Correct prediction: the Goober will fail to even attempt any
>>>>of the challenges put to him here, because he is by far too
>>>>clueless and inept...too inept to meet even his own challenges.)
>>
>> PREDICTION PROVEN CORRECT!
>
>No prediction.

The prediction which was predicted to be correct, was
proven correct by YOU Goo. I challenge you to try to
change the current state of affairs by trying to meet the
challenge, but you will only fail again, Goo. Fail now--GO:

>You bullshitted.

LOL!!! If I were to bullshit I might miss a chance to
point out how dishonest, stupid and inept you are, Goo.

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-06 14:16:47 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and
so he wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Rudy K. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008, Rudy Z. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Rudy V. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:

No "pointing out" - not this time, not ever.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rudy K. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rupie the soft, fruity maths whiz said, "I accept that some nonhuman
>>>>>>>> animals who are raised for food on farms have lives which are such that
>>>>>>>> it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But he can't say in what sense it's "better". "Better" necessarily
>>>>>>>> implies a comparison - the word "better" is a comparative, of course -
>>>>>>>> but the incoherent fruit can't say what it is that's being compared.
>>>>>>> Obviously Goo he feels it's better that they do experience
>>>>>>> those lives than that they don't, even if your supposed
>>>>>>> "state" of pre-existence might have some positive value,
>>>>>>> somehow, as you certainly appear to be convinced that
>>>>>>> it does. He probably feels that way even stronger if your
>>>>>>> supposed "state" of pre-existence doesn't have any value,
>>>>>>> Goo.
>>>>>> Obviously, GOO, rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>>>> What has been demonstrated is that
>>>> That rupie can't give any meaning to "better".
>>> He gave meaning
>> He gave no meaning to it.
>
> You can't conceive of any meaning to it

He gave no meaning to it.


>> In fact, Goo, he accepted *your* fuckwitted, wrong, cracker, pig-fucker
>> meaning:
>
> LOL!!! First you say he gave no meaning,

He didn't, but implicitly he accepted yours.

You're just too stupid for this, Goo.


>> that it is better for the animals themselves.
>
> That particular meaning challenges

NO challenge, Goo. You *cannot* challenge me, or Dutch, or anyone. You
just *can't*, Goo.


>>>>>> It's nonsense.
>>>>> LOL! Only to someone who can't comprehend Goob, so
>>>>> of course it necessarily must be to you who are clueless.
>>>> It's nonsense.
>>> Only to the clueless, Goo.
>> Yes, only nonsense.
>
> It's only nonsense to

It's only nonsense, full stop.


>>>>>> He can't give any sense in which it's better.
>>>>> He explained that he feels it's better for them to have
>>>>> the experience of a decent life of positive value, than to
>>>>> not live at all

He explicitly *denied* that it was better "for them". You can't read,
you ignorant pig-fucking cracker.


>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>> not make them better off" - Rudy Canoza

True.


>>>>>
>>>>> The challenge now put to you,

No challenge.



>>> PREDICTION
>> No prediction.
>
> The prediction

No prediction.


>>>> , rupie explicitly said it isn't better for him.
>>> Goober, what he said was:
>>>
>>> "it is better that they live that life than that they not live at all."
>> Goo, you stupid pig-fucking cracker: I asked him "better for whom or
>> what", and he refused to answer.
>
> You had already proven yourself

I had already proved - not "proven", you illiterate pig-fucker - correct.



>> I then asked, "better for you", and he said no.
>
> It's not better for you either

It sure is! I like to eat meat, so it's better for me that livestock
animals exist.


>>>>>>>> He's just blabbering away, incoherently, as usual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Better" is a judgment. A judgment implies a judge. The judge must
>>>>>>>> define the criteria, and the dimension on which he's judging. rupie the
>>>>>>>> soft fruit can't do it.
>>>>>>> You do it Goo. Try explaining why you think experiencing
>>>>>>> a life of positive value is never better than not having the
>>>>>>> experience. GO:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Prediction:

No prediction.

>>>>>> I've explained that hundreds of times.
>>>>> LOL!!! You have NEVER explained it

Hundreds of times.


>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, "life of positive value" is just your wretchedly expressed
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>> Try thinking of a better way to express it

The way I've expressed it is good.


>>>>>> Secondly, it's
>>>>>> bullshit, because you don't care about the quality of life lived by
>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>> Try explaining

Already done.


>>> PREDICTION PROVEN CORRECT!
>> No prediction.
>
> The prediction

No prediction.


>> You bullshitted.
>
> LOL!!! If I were to bullshit

You do. It's all you do, Goober.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


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