Vegetarian Discussion: Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - No "consideration" For Animals

Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - No "consideration" For Animals
Posts: 46

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   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-02-08 13:31:10 EST
You have never exhibited *any* consideration for animals. You have
none - you have admitted it.

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 don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

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


All you care about is the products. You admitted it.

George Plimpton
2011-02-08 13:51:52 EST
On Feb 8, 10:31 am, George Plimpton <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have never exhibited *any* consideration for animals.  You have
> none - you have admitted it.
>
>         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 don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
>         enough to make the effort.
>         Goo/Fuckwit 31 July 2003http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
>
>         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
>
> All you care about is the products.  You admitted it.


Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Goo/Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Goo/Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006


The *only* consideration Fuckwit has regarding farm animals is for the
products they yield. He doesn't care about their lives or their
welfare - only the products.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-02-19 20:36:55 EST
On Feb 8, 11:51 am, George Plimpton <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:31 am, George Plimpton <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > You have never exhibited *any* consideration for animals.  You have
> > none - you have admitted it.
>
> >         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 don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
> >         enough to make the effort.
> >         Goo/Fuckwit 31 July 2003http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
>
> >         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
>
> > All you care about is the products.  You admitted it.
>
>         Dave:
>         I am suggesting that we have no reason to
>         promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
>         wild animals
>
>         Goo/Fuckwit:
>         LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
>         think of either?
>
>         Dave:
>         Enlighten me.
>
>         Goo/Fuckwit:
>         Meat. Gravy.
>
>         Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>
> The *only* consideration Fuckwit has regarding farm animals is for the
> products they yield.  He doesn't care about their lives or their
> welfare - only the products.-


and your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.


D*@.
2011-02-21 16:03:40 EST
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com>
wrote:

>your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
>disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.

If he's getting paid, it must be from the veg*n side.

George Plimpton
2011-02-21 20:38:06 EST
On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<bcpg@canada.com>
> wrote:
>
>> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
>> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>
> If he's getting paid,

Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.


--
...and that's just how it is.

Sarge
2011-02-21 20:48:17 EST
On 22 Feb, 02:38, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<b...@canada.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
> >> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>
> >      If he's getting paid,
>
> Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.

Sometimes. And odd to make a general assertion, and one that need not
even apply. IOW it could be true and yet it does not resolve the
issue.

> --
> ...and that's just how it is.

Which is redundant. We assumed you believed the assertion.

I mean, why be cagey and abstract?


George Plimpton
2011-02-21 20:49:44 EST
On 2/21/2011 5:48 PM, sarge wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 02:38, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<b...@canada.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
>>>> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>>
>>> If he's getting paid,
>>
>> Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.
>
> Sometimes.

Always, in my case.



--
...and that's just how it is.

Sarge
2011-02-21 21:11:50 EST
On 22 Feb, 02:49, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 2/21/2011 5:48 PM, sarge wrote:
>
> > On 22 Feb, 02:38, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<b...@canada.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
> >>>> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>
> >>>       If he's getting paid,
>
> >> Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.
>
> > Sometimes.
>
> Always, in my case.
>
> --
> ...and that's just how it is.

There we go. A direct denial.


George Plimpton
2011-02-21 22:15:14 EST
On 2/21/2011 6:11 PM, sarge wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 02:49, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2011 5:48 PM, sarge wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 Feb, 02:38, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<b...@canada.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
>>>>>> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>>
>>>>> If he's getting paid,
>>
>>>> Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.
>>
>>> Sometimes.
>>
>> Always, in my case.
>>
>> --
>> ...and that's just how it is.
>
> There we go. A direct denial.
>


So? Do you have a point? I mean, a point other than having singled out
someone you dislike and pissing and moaning over whatever he says?

--
...and that's just how it is.

Sarge
2011-02-21 22:23:05 EST
On 22 Feb, 04:15, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 2/21/2011 6:11 PM, sarge wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Feb, 02:49, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2011 5:48 PM, sarge wrote:
>
> >>> On 22 Feb, 02:38, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 2/21/2011 1:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:55 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"<b...@canada.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> your only consideration is to keep that paycheque coming for
> >>>>>> disrupting vegan/vegetarian ngs.
>
> >>>>>        If he's getting paid,
>
> >>>> Pursuit of truth and reason is done for free.
>
> >>> Sometimes.
>
> >> Always, in my case.
>
> >> --
> >> ...and that's just how it is.
>
> > There we go.  A direct denial.
>
> So?  Do you have a point?  I mean, a point other than having singled out
> someone you dislike and pissing and moaning over whatever he says?

I don't dislike you. I don't remotely know you. I thought your
response to the accusation was, as I said, cagey.
Then you were more direct and I acknowledged that.

No pissing, no moaning.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


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