Vegetarian Discussion: Stupid GooFuckwit Harrison, Stupidist

Stupid GooFuckwit Harrison, Stupidist
Posts: 58

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   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-26 10:53:14 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. There is no such thing as a
"necessary" benefit.

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: coming into existence does not /improve/
anything for the entity.

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*@.
2008-09-29 06:37:16 EST
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 the Goober 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. There is no such thing as a
>"necessary" benefit.
>
>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: coming into existence does not /improve/
>anything for the entity.

Goober that doesn't mean anything unless you can explain
how you think your pre-existent self is preventing you from
benefitting from your own life. HOW do you think "He" is doing
it, Goo? HOOOOOOOW???

You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
referring back to "Him". You have an identity disorder Goob.
Let's help you try to get some sort of grip on your "selves":

"Him" - Prior to existing,

"Him" - there was no entity,

"His" - and thus no welfare to be improved.

Goo - Coming into existence

Goo - "getting to experience life"

Goo/"Him"¿? - is not a benefit,

Goo/"Him"¿? - by definition:

Goo - coming into existence

Goo/"Him"¿? - does not /improve/ anything for the entity.

Notice that you're thinking of your "selves" as at least
three different "yous" Goo: You, "Him", and there's
the blending of "both" of you Goober where it's not
clear whether you really believe that you don't benefit
from your own life, or you believe "He" is somehow
still part of you or something, preventing you from
benefitting from your own existence. You must think
"He" resides within your own stupid ass Goo, because
where else would you imagine "Him" doing it. So that
much is clear enough Goob, because that's the only
way it could be. But that one question lingers...the big
one...how? Without the how, you don't provide anything
to even consider, Goo. Like a dog without a bone, or
even a fun boner.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-29 11:27:43 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 the Goober 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. There is no such thing as a
>> "necessary" benefit.
>>
>> 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: coming into existence does not /improve/
>> anything for the entity.
>
> Rudy that doesn't mean anything unless you can explain
> how you think your pre-existent self is preventing

Wrong, Goo. You tried this before, Goo, and I kicked it up your cracker
ass. I don't think that "pre-existence prevents" anything, Goo. Goo,
you stupid cracker. Try something new.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-29 12:37:02 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:


> You don't have any idea Rudy. A person can't even get you
> to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
> referring back to "Him".

No, Goo. No "referring back", Goo - not once. "Him" is your ignorant
Southern Baptist credulous believer fabrication, Goo. All yours, Goo.

Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.

D*@.
2008-09-30 08:07:16 EST
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:37:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:37:16 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 the Goober 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. There is no such thing as a
>>>"necessary" benefit.
>>>
>>>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: coming into existence does not /improve/
>>>anything for the entity.
>>
>> Goober that doesn't mean anything unless you can explain
>>how you think your pre-existent self is preventing you from
>>benefitting from your own life. HOW do you think "He" is doing
>>it, Goo? HOOOOOOOW???
>>
>> You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
>>to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>referring back to "Him".
>
>No

Then try doing it Goo. Try explaining why you think you
don't benefit from your own life without referring to "Him".
Go:

(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)

>>You have an identity disorder Goob.
>>Let's help you try to get some sort of grip on your "selves":
>>
>>"Him" - Prior to existing,
>>
>>"Him" - there was no entity,
>>
>>"His" - and thus no welfare to be improved.
>>
>>Goo - Coming into existence
>>
>>Goo - "getting to experience life"
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - is not a benefit,
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - by definition:
>>
>>Goo - coming into existence
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - does not /improve/ anything for the entity.
>>
>>Notice that you're thinking of your "selves" as at least
>>three different "yous" Goo: You, "Him", and there's
>>the blending of "both" of you Goober where it's not
>>clear whether you really believe that you don't benefit
>>from your own life, or you believe "He" is somehow
>>still part of you or something, preventing you from
>>benefitting from your own existence. You must think
>>"He" resides within your own stupid ass Goo, because
>>where else would you imagine "Him" doing it. So that
>>much is clear enough Goob, because that's the only
>>way it could be.
>
>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.

Only because you believe their pre-existent selves are
preventing it. Try explaining why you think livestock don't
benefit from their lives without referring to "Them"--their
pre-existent "selves". Go:

(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)

>>But that one question lingers...the big
>>one...how? Without the how, you don't provide anything
>>to even consider, Goo. Like a dog without a bone, or
>>even a fun boner.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-30 11:15:02 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:37:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 the Rudy K. (for "kind") 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. There is no such thing as a
>>>> "necessary" benefit.
>>>>
>>>> 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: coming into existence does not /improve/
>>>> anything for the entity.
>>> Rudy that doesn't mean anything
>> Wrong, Goo. You tried this before, Goo, and I kicked it up your cracker ass. I don't think that "pre-existence prevents" anything, Goo. Goo, you stupid cracker. Try something new.
>
> Then try doing it Rudy. Try explaining why you think you
> don't benefit from your own life

No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo. I have explained
this to you hundreds of times.


> without referring to "Him".

No reference to "Him" or "He", Goo. You made that up. Stop lying, Goo.


>> Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.
>
> Only because

Only because it logically cannot be, Goo. That's why, Goo - Goo, you
stupid pig-fucking cockfighting-specialist cracker.

Rudy Canoza
2008-09-30 18:00:24 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:37:02 -0700, Rudy F. Y. Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 Rudy M. 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. There is no such thing as a
>>>> "necessary" benefit.
>>>>
>>>> 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: coming into existence does not /improve/
>>>> anything for the entity.
>>> Rudy that doesn't mean anything unless
>> No, Goo. No "referring back", Goo - not once. "Him" is your ignorant
>> Southern Baptist credulous believer fabrication, Goo. All yours, Goo.
>
> Then try doing it Rudy.

Nothing to try, Goo.


> Try explaining why you think you
> don't benefit from your own life

No one "benefits" from existence, Goo.


> without referring to "Him".

No such reference, Goo, except in your febrile mind.


>> Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.
>
> Only because you believe their pre-existent selves are
> preventing it.

No, Goo. That's another fabrication you crapped together. I have never
said "pre-existence prevents" anything, Goo. You lied. You're a
reflexive liar and cheat, Goo.

D*@.
2008-10-01 11:15:59 EST
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo claimed:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>> You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
>>>>to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>>>referring back to "Him".
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then try doing it Goo. Try explaining why you think you
>>don't benefit from your own life without referring to "Him".
>>Go:
>
>No one "benefits" from coming into existence

That's simply a claim without a clue, Goo.

>, Goo. I have explained this to you hundreds of times.

In contrast to that lie: You can't even make an attempt, as
you prove every time you're challenged to make one.


D*@.
2008-10-01 11:17:19 EST
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 the Goober finally figure out:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:07:16 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo claimed:
>>
>>>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock
>>
>> Only because you believe their pre-existent selves are
>>preventing it. Try explaining why you think livestock don't
>>benefit from their lives without referring to "Them"--their
>>pre-existent "selves". Go:
>>
>>(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)
>>
>>>>But that one question lingers...the big
>>>>one...how? Without the how, you don't provide anything
>>>>to even consider, Goo.
>
>Nothing to try

LOL!!! After all these years of making your clueless claim
you finally see that you have nothing and never did, Goo.
I'd say it's about time, but it's way PAST time that even an
idiot like yourself finally managed to figure it out.

>>>>Like a dog without a bone, or even a fun boner.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-01 13:40:46 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".


>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

No "pointing out".


>>>>
>>>>> You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
>>>>> to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>>>> referring back to "Him".
>>>> No
>>> Then try doing it Rudy. Try explaining
>>
>> No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo. I have explained this to you hundreds of times.
>
> That's simply a claim

It's the truty.


>
>> , Goo. I have explained this to you hundreds of times.
>>
>>> without referring to "Him".

No reference to "Him" or "He", Goo. You made that up. Stop lying, Goo.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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