Vegetarian Discussion: No Consideration For Animals' Lives

No Consideration For Animals' Lives
Posts: 25

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-15 13:58:13 EST
The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
*all* it means.

He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives as
animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
abundantly clear over 11 years:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Oxtail
2010-06-15 15:05:21 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
> *all* it means.
>
> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives as
> animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
> abundantly clear over 11 years:
>
> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't
> raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in the
> ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration for
> them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>
> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of
> the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat.
> That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would
> just ignore their suffering.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to
> them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that
> what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean that
> I can't still like the animals also....
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>
> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.


[quote]
One day, Chuangtse was strolling beside the river with Huitse. Huitse, a
man of erudition, was fond of arguing. They were just crossing a bridge
when Chuangtse said, "The fish have come up to the surface and are
swimming about at their leisure. That is how fish enjoy themselves."
Immediately Huitse countered this with: "You are not a fish. How can you
tell what a fish enjoys?""You are not me," said Chuangtse. "How do you
know that I can't tell what a fish enjoys?""I am not you," said Huitse
triumphantly. "So of course I cannot tell about you. In the same way, you
are not a fish. So you cannot tell a fish's feelings. Well--is my logic
not unanswerable?""Wait, let us go back to the root of the argument,"
said Chuangtse. "When you asked me how I knew what a fish enjoyed, you
admitted that you knew already whether I knew or not. I knew, on the
bridge, that the fish were enjoying themselves."
[/quote]


You are not him.
How do you know what he cares about?

--
oxtail

Dr Who Duh
2010-06-15 15:18:27 EST
On 16/06/2010 3:05 AM, oxtail wrote:
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>> *all* it means.
>>
>> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives as
>> animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
>> abundantly clear over 11 years:
>>
>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't
>> raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in the
>> ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration for
>> them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of
>> the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat.
>> That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would
>> just ignore their suffering.
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to
>> them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that
>> what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean that
>> I can't still like the animals also....
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>
>> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
>
>
> [quote]
> One day, Chuangtse was strolling beside the river with Huitse. Huitse, a
> man of erudition, was fond of arguing. They were just crossing a bridge
> when Chuangtse said, "The fish have come up to the surface and are
> swimming about at their leisure. That is how fish enjoy themselves."
> Immediately Huitse countered this with: "You are not a fish. How can you
> tell what a fish enjoys?""You are not me," said Chuangtse. "How do you
> know that I can't tell what a fish enjoys?""I am not you," said Huitse
> triumphantly. "So of course I cannot tell about you. In the same way, you
> are not a fish. So you cannot tell a fish's feelings. Well--is my logic
> not unanswerable?""Wait, let us go back to the root of the argument,"
> said Chuangtse. "When you asked me how I knew what a fish enjoyed, you
> admitted that you knew already whether I knew or not. I knew, on the
> bridge, that the fish were enjoying themselves."
> [/quote]
>
>
> You are not him.
> How do you know what he cares about?
>

by being intelligent one can hazard
an educated guess. have many friends?

i don't know why you aren't a vegan?

Oxtail
2010-06-15 15:34:56 EST
Dr Who Duh wrote:

> On 16/06/2010 3:05 AM, oxtail wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist.
>>> That's *all* it means.
>>>
>>> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives
>>> as animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
>>> abundantly clear over 11 years:
>>>
>>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't
>>> raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in
>>> the ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration
>>> for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
>>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>>
>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of
>>> the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
>>> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
>>> but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>>
>>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to
>>> them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that
>>> what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean
>>> that I can't still like the animals also.... Goo/Fuckwit
>>> David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>>
>>> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>>> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
>>
>>
>> [quote]
>> One day, Chuangtse was strolling beside the river with Huitse. Huitse,
>> a man of erudition, was fond of arguing. They were just crossing a
>> bridge when Chuangtse said, "The fish have come up to the surface and
>> are swimming about at their leisure. That is how fish enjoy
>> themselves." Immediately Huitse countered this with: "You are not a
>> fish. How can you tell what a fish enjoys?""You are not me," said
>> Chuangtse. "How do you know that I can't tell what a fish enjoys?""I am
>> not you," said Huitse triumphantly. "So of course I cannot tell about
>> you. In the same way, you are not a fish. So you cannot tell a fish's
>> feelings. Well--is my logic not unanswerable?""Wait, let us go back to
>> the root of the argument," said Chuangtse. "When you asked me how I
>> knew what a fish enjoyed, you admitted that you knew already whether I
>> knew or not. I knew, on the bridge, that the fish were enjoying
>> themselves." [/quote]
>>
>>
>> You are not him.
>> How do you know what he cares about?
>>
>>
> by being intelligent one can hazard
> an educated guess. have many friends?
>
> i don't know why you aren't a vegan?


Ever heard a tomato scream?

--
oxtail

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-15 15:45:27 EST
On 6/15/2010 12:05 PM, oxtail wrote:
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist. That's
>> *all* it means.
>>
>> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives as
>> animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
>> abundantly clear over 11 years:
>>
>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't
>> raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in the
>> ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration for
>> them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of
>> the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat.
>> That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would
>> just ignore their suffering.
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to
>> them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that
>> what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean that
>> I can't still like the animals also....
>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>
>> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
>
>
> [quote]
>
> [/quote]
>
>
> You are not him.
> How do you know what he cares about?

He tells us.

Oxtail
2010-06-15 15:53:37 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 6/15/2010 12:05 PM, oxtail wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he means
>>> is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they exist.
>>> That's *all* it means.
>>>
>>> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their lives
>>> as animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has made that
>>> abundantly clear over 11 years:
>>>
>>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't
>>> raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in
>>> the ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration
>>> for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
>>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>>
>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of
>>> the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat
>>> meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all,
>>> but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>>
>>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to
>>> them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that
>>> what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean
>>> that I can't still like the animals also.... Goo/Fuckwit
>>> David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>>
>>> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>>> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
>>
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> [/quote]
>>
>>
>> You are not him.
>> How do you know what he cares about?
>
> He tells us.


Doesn't he say that he cares about
the welfare of livestock animals?

--
oxtail

Oxtail
2010-06-15 16:31:12 EST
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 6/15/2010 12:53 PM, oxtail wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/15/2010 12:05 PM, oxtail wrote:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The lying cracker, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, continually blabbers
>>>>> about having "consideration" for the lives of animals. What he
>>>>> means is, he thinks it's good for the animals themselves if they
>>>>> exist. That's *all* it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> He sure as hell doesn't have one bit of consideration for their
>>>>> lives as animals experience them, i.e., for their welfare. He has
>>>>> made that abundantly clear over 11 years:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we
>>>>> don't raise them for food. It's because they would be a
>>>>> pain in the ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of
>>>>> consideration for them either, but because they're fairly
>>>>> easy to raise. Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all
>>>>> of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still
>>>>> eat meat. That is not because I don't care about them at
>>>>> all, but I would just ignore their suffering. Goo/Fuckwit
>>>>> David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>>>>
>>>>> I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel
>>>>> to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal.
>>>>> Is that what you want me to say? It is true. But that
>>>>> doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals also....
>>>>> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
>>>>> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>>
>>>> [/quote]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are not him.
>>>> How do you know what he cares about?
>>>
>>> He tells us.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't he say that he cares about
>> the welfare of livestock animals?
>
> No. He does not say that.


Ask him.

--
oxtail

D*@.
2010-06-17 15:04:53 EST
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:05:21 +0000 (UTC), oxtail
<*l@nowhere.org> wrote:

>[quote]
>One day, Chuangtse was strolling beside the river with Huitse. Huitse, a
>man of erudition, was fond of arguing. They were just crossing a bridge
>when Chuangtse said, "The fish have come up to the surface and are
>swimming about at their leisure. That is how fish enjoy themselves."
>Immediately Huitse countered this with: "You are not a fish. How can you
>tell what a fish enjoys?""You are not me," said Chuangtse. "How do you
>know that I can't tell what a fish enjoys?""I am not you," said Huitse
>triumphantly. "So of course I cannot tell about you. In the same way, you
>are not a fish. So you cannot tell a fish's feelings. Well--is my logic
>not unanswerable?""Wait, let us go back to the root of the argument,"
>said Chuangtse. "When you asked me how I knew what a fish enjoyed, you
>admitted that you knew already whether I knew or not. I knew, on the
>bridge, that the fish were enjoying themselves."
>[/quote]
>
>
>You are not him.
>How do you know what he cares about?

Goo intentionally lies about my beliefs. Though you want to
pretend I should never mention it, it's a significant aspect of
the situation. He's trying to get you to believe things that are
not true. It worked on your friend possum, and it is having an
influence on you whether you want to admit it or not. Obviously I
do care about the lives of animals and the quality of their
lives. Just because I don't make anywhere near as many posts
correcting Goo's lies as he does lying doesn't make him correct,
nor does it mean I should never correct his lies. By this time
you should know the Goober is lying about at least that much, and
you should be calling him on it imo.

Back to the animals... In case you were not aware of what Goo
wants you to believe about the feelings and emotions of animals,
here are some of the stupid things he would have you believe
about that:

"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

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

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-06-17 15:07:45 EST
On 6/17/2010 12:04 PM, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, The Coward, The
Liar - attempted to bullshit:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:05:21 +0000 (UTC), oxtail
> <oxtail@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>> [quote]
>> One day, Chuangtse was strolling beside the river with Huitse. Huitse, a
>> man of erudition, was fond of arguing. They were just crossing a bridge
>> when Chuangtse said, "The fish have come up to the surface and are
>> swimming about at their leisure. That is how fish enjoy themselves."
>> Immediately Huitse countered this with: "You are not a fish. How can you
>> tell what a fish enjoys?""You are not me," said Chuangtse. "How do you
>> know that I can't tell what a fish enjoys?""I am not you," said Huitse
>> triumphantly. "So of course I cannot tell about you. In the same way, you
>> are not a fish. So you cannot tell a fish's feelings. Well--is my logic
>> not unanswerable?""Wait, let us go back to the root of the argument,"
>> said Chuangtse. "When you asked me how I knew what a fish enjoyed, you
>> admitted that you knew already whether I knew or not. I knew, on the
>> bridge, that the fish were enjoying themselves."
>> [/quote]
>>
>>
>> You are not him.
>> How do you know what he cares about?
>
> intentionally lies about my beliefs.

I have never lied about your beliefs. You believe that if "aras"
somehow succeed in "preventing" livestock animals from existing, those
"prevented animals" will experience an unfair "loss":

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

Your beliefs are right out there in public, Fuckwit.

Kabex
2010-06-17 17:27:23 EST

> I have never lied about your beliefs.  You believe that if "aras"
> somehow succeed in "preventing" livestock animals from existing, those
> "prevented animals" will experience an unfair "loss":

free will. you can believe whatever you want.

"Vodka!"

"Huh?"

"Jod Da'ath will go your the rum."....

<here is your pitch fred dobbs>

"unless of course you can get us some mulled cidar. not the store
stuff... the real stuff and that goes awesome with rum.'

...

"what do you mean you brought licorice? who gives a fuck."

Tim


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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