Vegetarian Discussion: GooFuckwit David Harrison Stupidism - III

GooFuckwit David Harrison Stupidism - III
Posts: 38

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-11 10:15:43 EST
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 the experience.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 22, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5p2hz3


Existence is not a benefit at all. A benefit is defined as something
that improves the beneficiary's welfare. Prior to existing, there was
no entity, and thus no welfare to be improved. Coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, by definition.

We see that once again, Goo Fuckwit Harrison woke up on Mar 22, 2005 and
thought to himself, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he wrote the silly bullshit above.



D*@.
2008-08-11 17:43:40 EST
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

>Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare

Try explaining how you think pre-existent entities prevent
existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value. Go:

(Correct prediction: the Goober can not meet the challenge,
and will fail completely to try to explain.)

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-11 23:18:25 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, 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, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:

>>> 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 the experience.
>>> Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 22, 2005
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5p2hz3
>
>> Existence is not a benefit at all. A benefit is defined as something
>> that improves the beneficiary's welfare. Prior to existing, there was
>> no entity, and thus no welfare to be improved. Coming into existence -
>> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, by definition.
>
> Try explaining

I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit.
You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you
stupid Stupidist.

D*@.
2008-08-12 08:55:14 EST
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo lied:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:43:40 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
>>
>> Try explaining how you think pre-existent entities prevent
>>existing ones from benefitting from lives of positive value. Go:
>
>I just did

No Goober, you simply made the claim without backing
it up, or even coming close. You need to explain how you
think your own pre-existence is preventing you from benefitting
from your existence now. GO:

(Correct prediction: the Goober can not meet the challenge,
and will fail completely to try to explain.)

>>(Correct prediction: the Goober can not meet the challenge,
>>and will fail completely to try to explain.)

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-12 13:44:57 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
>>> Try explaining
>> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
>
> No Rudy,

Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.

No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.

Rupert
2008-08-18 23:00:34 EST
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
> woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
> yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
> >>>    Try explaining
> >> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist.  Existence is not a benefit.  You wrote shit on March 22, 2005.  You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
>
> >     No Rudy,
>
> Yes, Goo, I just did.  I have proved that coming into existence -
> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
>
> No challenge, Goo.  You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
> challenge to me, on anything.  You cannot - you are incapable of it.

It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
complete nonsense. You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
you think otherwise.

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-19 02:35:53 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
>> woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
>> yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
>>>>> Try explaining
>>>> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
>>> No Rudy,
>> Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
>> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
>>
>> No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
>> challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
>
> It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
> Harrison's challenge,

I didn't say that.

Dutch
2008-08-19 04:13:50 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
>> woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
>> yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
>>>>> Try explaining
>>>> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
>>> No Rudy,
>> Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
>> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
>>
>> No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
>> challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
>
> It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
> Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
> that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
> complete nonsense. You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
> you think otherwise.

If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge.



Rupert
2008-08-19 05:11:53 EST
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
> >> woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
> >> yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
> >>>>> Try explaining
> >>>> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
> >>> No Rudy,
> >> Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
> >> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
>
> >> No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
> >> challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
>
> > It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
> > Harrison's challenge,
>
> I didn't say that.

David Harrison's challenge was to explain something. You wrote "I just
did explain, you fucking Stupidist." So you did claim to have met
David Harrison's challenge.

Rupert
2008-08-19 05:21:11 EST
On Aug 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
> >> woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
> >> yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
> >>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
> >>>>> Try explaining
> >>>> I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
> >>> No Rudy,
> >> Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
> >> "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
>
> >> No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
> >> challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
>
> > It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
> > Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
> > that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
> > complete nonsense. You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
> > you think otherwise.
>
> If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
> realize that it is not necessary to declare that
> "pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
> Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
> deny categorically the existence of something of which
> we have absolutely no knowledge.

I am sure you are right that I ought to read Salt's essay. I was
actually aware that it is not necessary to declare that "pre-
existence" is nonsense in order to refute the Logic of the Larder.
However, it's not an error to declare that "pre-existence" is
nonsense, it most definitely is incoherent nonsense. It is true that
we might conceivably be immortal souls who float about in the ether
and become "attached" to biological organisms when those organisms
come into existence. (Although we shouldn't give any credence to such
a possibility when making an argument in practical ethics with real-
life applications, because there's absolutely no evidence for such a
possibility.) However, this still wouldn't alter the fact that it's
incoherent nonsense to talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-
existent entity". An entity can't exist before it exists. We should
instead speak of a state which our soul is in before our body comes
into existence, or a soul existing prior to the existence of the body
to which it eventually becomes attached.

If David Harrison is allowed to make conjectures that there are souls
floating about in the ether which become attached to bodies then I
suppose he may as well be allowed to conjecture that those souls
benefit by becoming attached to bodies. Since it is all conjecture
without the slightest supporting evidence, then why not?
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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