Vegetarian Discussion: *One* Ethical Fact: GooFuckwit David Harrison Fabricates Pseudo-quotes

*One* Ethical Fact: GooFuckwit David Harrison Fabricates Pseudo-quotes
Posts: 16

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-22 12:45:10 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison - never accurately quotes anyone.

If Goo claims to be quoting anyone, you know with complete certainty the
person didn't write it as GooFuckwit has reproduced it. Goo always
mangles it deliberately to make the person appear to say something
completely different from what he actually wrote. Fuckwit David
"Bumper" Harrison is always lying when he claims to be quoting someone.

Here are four instances in which Goo mangled what I wrote in order to
try to make it appear I believe the opposite of what I actually wrote.
His effort is slovenly, amateurish and about what you'd expect from a
high school dropout cracker. Goo Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison is a
high school dropout.



Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"

What I actually wrote (in response to Fuckwit):

Fuckwit:
Why not provide them with decent lives and then
stop worrying about quitting raising them?

Rudy:
Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit. IF one
believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude
that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice.



Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:

"'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
of their deaths"

What I actually wrote:

Rudy:
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.

Fuckwit:
But it's not wrong to kill them for food

Rudy:
I don't feel it's wrong, but some people do feel it's
wrong, and you have given them no reason to discard
their belief.



Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:

Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
...is no mitigation at all for killing them."

What I actually wrote:

Fuckwit subscribes to a bankrupt, illogical
pseudo-philosophy
called The (Il)Logic of the Larder. According to
that bit of fuckwittery, people who consume animals
justify the harm they inflict on the animals by
believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow
mitigates the harm. It's a futile, fuckwitted
attempt to counter the equally fuckwitted, bankrupt
philosophy of "veganism". It doesn't work. Causing
animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
for killing them.



Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:

the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all

What I actually wrote:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
moral "loss" that results from not raising the
animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
realized by the animal in existing at all, then you
MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise
the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them.

H*@zappo.com
2008-10-25 20:56:23 EST
On Oct 22, 12:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison - never accurately quotes anyone.
>
> If Goo claims to be quoting anyone, you know with complete certainty the
> person didn't write it as GooFuckwit has reproduced it.  Goo always
> mangles it deliberately to make the person appear to say something
> completely different from what he actually wrote.  Fuckwit David
> "Bumper" Harrison is always lying when he claims to be quoting someone.
>
> Here are four instances in which Goo mangled what I wrote in order to
> try to make it appear I believe the opposite of what I actually wrote.
> His effort is slovenly, amateurish and about what you'd expect from a
> high school dropout cracker.  Goo Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison is a
> high school dropout.
>
> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
>     "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>     magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>     "decent lives"
>
> What I actually wrote (in response to Fuckwit):
>
>     Fuckwit:
>     Why not provide them with decent lives and then
>     stop worrying about quitting raising them?
>
>     Rudy:
>     Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit.  IF one
>     believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
>     greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
>     from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude
>     that not raising them in the first place is the
>     ethically superior choice.
>
> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
>     "'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
>     of their deaths"
>
> What I actually wrote:
>
>     Rudy:
>     "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>     their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.
>
>     Fuckwit:
>     But it's not wrong to kill them for food
>
>     Rudy:
>     I don't feel it's wrong, but some people do feel it's
>     wrong, and you have given them no reason to discard
>     their belief.
>
> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
>     Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>     ...is no mitigation at all for killing them."
>
> What I actually wrote:
>
>     Fuckwit subscribes to a bankrupt, illogical
> pseudo-philosophy
>     called The (Il)Logic of the Larder.  According to
>     that bit of fuckwittery, people who consume animals
>     justify the harm they inflict on the animals by
>     believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow
>     mitigates the harm.  It's a futile, fuckwitted
>     attempt to counter the equally fuckwitted, bankrupt
>     philosophy of "veganism".  It doesn't work.  Causing
>     animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
>     Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
>     for killing them.
>
> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
>      the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
>      kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
>      in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>      by the animal in existing at all
>
> What I actually wrote:
>
>      If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
>      believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>      deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
>      harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
>      moral "loss" that results from not raising the
>      animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
>      realized by the animal in existing at all, then you
>      MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise
>      the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>      results from killing them.


This is the funniest post I've ever seen on here, ever. I choked on
my food. Fuckwittery. I love it.

D*@.
2008-10-26 10:57:17 EST
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 the Goober cried:

>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
> "decent lives"

So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
Go:

>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
> "'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
> of their deaths"

So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
Go:

>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
> Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> ...is no mitigation at all for killing them."

So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
Go:

>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>
> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
> kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
> in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
> by the animal in existing at all

So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
Go:

D*@.
2008-10-26 10:58:00 EST
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT), hajina@zappo.com wrote:

>This is the funniest post I've ever seen on here, ever. I choked on
>my food. Fuckwittery. I love it.

If we could get Goo to try explaining how he thinks
he disagrees with himself about his beliefs that I quoted,
that would be hilarious too. But the best prediction is that
Goob won't even try.
_________________________________________________________
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives" - Goo

"'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
of their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
...is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Goober obviously agrees with himself about all that
since he insists:
_________________________________________________________
"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

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

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but it would be quite amusing to see him try to explain
how he thinks he disagrees. It would almost certainly
be a hilarious display of inept Goobal fuckwittery if it were
possible to get Goo to meet the challenge and make the
attempt, but unfortunately he's too inept to even try.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-26 14:39:03 EST
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza showed Goo Fuckwit "Bumper" Harrison to be a text-mangling liar:
>
>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>
>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>> "decent lives"
>
> So far we're left with

We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.

What I actually wrote:

Fuckwit:
Why not provide them with decent lives and then
stop worrying about quitting raising them?

Rudy:
Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit. IF one
believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude
that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice.


>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>
>> "'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
>> of their deaths"
>
> So far we're left with

We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.

What I actually wrote:

Rudy:
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.

Fuckwit:
But it's not wrong to kill them for food

Rudy:
I don't feel it's wrong, but some people do feel it's
wrong, and you have given them no reason to discard
their belief.


>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>
>> Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>> ...is no mitigation at all for killing them."
>
> So far we're left with

We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.

What I actually wrote:

Fuckwit subscribes to a bankrupt, illogical pseudo-philosophy
called The (Il)Logic of the Larder. According to
that bit of fuckwittery, people who consume animals
justify the harm they inflict on the animals by
believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow
mitigates the harm. It's a futile, fuckwitted
attempt to counter the equally fuckwitted, bankrupt
philosophy of "veganism". It doesn't work. Causing
animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
for killing them.


>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>
>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
>> kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
>> in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>> by the animal in existing at all
>
> So far we're left with

We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.

What I actually wrote:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
moral "loss" that results from not raising the
animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
realized by the animal in existing at all, then you
MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise
the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them.



You lied, Goo - "Bumper", you stupid catfish-fucking child-abusing
shitbag. You didn't post "quotes" from me, Goo. You posted mangled
bullshit.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-26 14:40:29 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT), hajina@zappo.com wrote:
>
>> This is the funniest post I've ever seen on here, ever. I choked on
>> my food. Fuckwittery. I love it.
>
> If we could get Rudy to try explaining

[snip mangled non-quotes]

Rudy has already explained everything that needed explaining.

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life", in fuckwitted
stupid cracker Goo "Bumper" Fuckwit David Harrison mumbling - is not a
benefit.

D*@.
2008-10-27 08:14:53 EST
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:58:00 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT), hajina@zappo.com wrote:
>>
>>>This is the funniest post I've ever seen on here, ever. I choked on
>>>my food. Fuckwittery. I love it.
>>
>> If we could get Goo to try explaining how he thinks
>>he disagrees with himself about his beliefs that I quoted,
>>that would be hilarious too. But the best prediction is that
>>Goob won't even try.
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>"decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
>>of their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>...is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
>>kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
>>in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>>by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>[snip mangled non-quotes]

Those are undoubtedly your quotes Goo. Whether you agree
or disagree with yourself is the only thing that could be in question,
and your inability to explain how you think you disagree with yourself
shows clearly that you agree with every bit of it, Goober. Of course
we have other examples of you confirming that you don't disagree
with yourself about any of it as well as the claims themselves.
>
>Rudy has already explained everything that needed explaining.

Goo can't explain how he thinks he disagrees with a single bit
of it, clearly showing that he agrees with himself about all of it. Duh.

>>The Goober obviously agrees with himself about all that
>>since he insists:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>
>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>to humans " - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>
>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>but it would be quite amusing to see him try to explain
>>how he thinks he disagrees. It would almost certainly
>>be a hilarious display of inept Goobal fuckwittery if it were
>>possible to get Goo to meet the challenge and make the
>>attempt, but unfortunately he's too inept to even try.

>Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" . . .
>is not a benefit.

By saying that you're clearly showing you agree with yourself
about all of the following, Goo:
_________________________________________________________
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives" - Goo

"'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
of their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
...is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

D*@.
2008-10-27 08:17:13 EST
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 Goo tried to lie himself away from his own beliefs:

>On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:57:17 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 the Goober cried:
>>
>>>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>> "decent lives"
>>
>> So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
>>you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
>>to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
>>yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
>>Go:
>
>We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>
>What I actually wrote:
>
> Fuckwit:
> Why not provide them with decent lives and then
> stop worrying about quitting raising them?
>
> Rudy:
> Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit. IF one
> believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
> greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
> from "decent lives",

Which you most obviously do Goo, so it would be stupid to
include something that suggests you might not. However Goober,
if you think you disagree with yourself that:

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

then try explaining how you think you do. Since you can't, we
can clearly see that you don't disagree with yourself about your
quotes and you're lying when you pretend that you do.

> then logically one MUST conclude
> that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice.

>>>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>
>>> "'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
>>> of their deaths"
>>
>> So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
>>you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
>>to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
>>yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
>>Go:
>
>We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>
>What I actually wrote:
>
> Rudy:
> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.
>
> Fuckwit:
> But it's not wrong to kill them for food
>
> Rudy:
> I don't feel it's wrong

You most obviously do Goo, so it would be stupid to include
something that suggests you might not. However Goober, if
you think you disagree with yourself that:

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

then try explaining how you think you do. Since you can't, we
can clearly see that you don't disagree with yourself about your
quotes and you're lying when you pretend that you do.

>>>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>
>>> Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> ...is no mitigation at all for killing them."
>>
>> So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
>>you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
>>to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
>>yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
>>Go:
>
>What I actually wrote:

After snipping the useless bullshit all we have left is the
quote you can't explain how you think you disagree with
yourself about, you stupid Goober:

> Causing
> animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
> Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
> for killing them.

So far you're proving me correct about everything you're
trying to bitch about, Goob.

>>>Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>
>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
>>> kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
>>> in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>>> by the animal in existing at all
>>
>> So far we're left with nothing to believe other than that
>>you do agree with yourself about it Goob, but are ashamed
>>to have it known. If you want to claim that you disagree with
>>yourself Goo, just try explaining how you want to claim you do.
>>Go:
>
>We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>
>What I actually wrote:
>
> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
> believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
> harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
> moral "loss" that results from not raising the
> animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
> realized by the animal in existing at all

Which you most obviously do Goo, so it would be stupid to
include something that suggests you might not. However Goober,
if you think you disagree with yourself that:

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

then try explaining how you think you do. Since you can't, we
can clearly see that you don't disagree with yourself about your
quotes and you're lying when you pretend that you do. With all
of your crying all you've done is to prove me correct AGAIN, Goo.


Rudy Canoza
2008-10-27 10:20:52 EST
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT), hajina@zappo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the funniest post I've ever seen on here, ever. I choked on
>>>> my food. Fuckwittery. I love it.
>>> If we could get Goo to try explaining
>>
>> Everything has been explained.
>>
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" . . .
>> is not a benefit.
>
> By saying that you're clearly

By saying that, "Bumper", I'm clearly telling you the truth.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-27 10:26:37 EST
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>> magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>> "decent lives"
>>> So far we're left with
>>
>> We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>>
>> What I actually wrote:
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> Why not provide them with decent lives and then
>> stop worrying about quitting raising them?
>>
>> Rudy:
>> Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit. IF one
>> believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
>> greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
>> from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude
>> that not raising them in the first place is the
>> ethically superior choice.
>
> Which you most obviously do Rudy,

No, I do not, and you know it, Goo. You're lying.

>
>>>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
>>>> of their deaths"
>>> So far we're left with
>>
>> We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>>
>> What I actually wrote:
>>
>> Rudy:
>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> But it's not wrong to kill them for food
>>
>> Rudy:
>> I don't feel it's wrong
>
> You most obviously do Rudy,

I very obviously do not, Goo, and you know it. You're lying.


>>>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>> ...is no mitigation at all for killing them."
>>> So far we're left with
>>
>> We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>>
>> What I actually wrote:
>
> After snipping the useless bullshit

No, after putting back what I actually wrote that proves that you
mangled what I wrote to make something I never said.


>> Causing
>> animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
>> Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
>> for killing them.
>
> So far

So far, we have seen that you lied about all of them, Goo.


>>>> Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
>>>> kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
>>>> in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
>>>> by the animal in existing at all
>>> So far we're left with
>>
>> We're left with the proof that you're a text-mangling liar, Goo.
>>
>> What I actually wrote:
>>
>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
>> believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
>> deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
>> harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
>> moral "loss" that results from not raising the
>> animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
>> realized by the animal in existing at all
>
> Which you most obviously do Rudy,

Which I very clearly do not, Goo. You lied.

You're a liar. Everyone knows you're a quote-mangling liar.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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