Vegetarian Discussion: Goo Says He Never Lies

Goo Says He Never Lies
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-02 15:15:24 EST

"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo


I think I may have caught you lying, Goo.

George Plimpton
2011-03-03 20:40:54 EST
On 3/3/2011 6:04 PM, dh@. wrote:

>
> From my experience

Yours is the experience of an illegal breeder of fighting roosters.


> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever"

True.


> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> of consideration."

True.


>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> moral consideration, and is given none"

True.


> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> a benefit at all"

True.


>
> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> existing animals "benefit" from living."

True.


>
> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> *IF* the livestock exist. "

True.


>
> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> existing animals enjoy living."

True.


> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state"

True - and that's exactly what you assume, Fuckwit.


Every one of those is a true statement, Fuckwit. You lose, again.

D*@.
2011-03-03 21:04:36 EST
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:15:24 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:

>
>"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
>"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>
>
>I think I may have caught you lying, Goo.

From my experience it's easier to find examples of Goo lying than of him
telling the truth. Denying that he lies for example is as blatant a lie as that
Goober could tell. Here are some more to enjoy:
_________________________________________________________
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Notice that in this second group when Goo lies that we're never discusssing
existing animals he is necessarily making a reference to his supposed
pre-existent state which he also denies and lies blatantly about:
_________________________________________________________
""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-04 02:12:52 EST
On Mar 3, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 6:04 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> >       From my experience
>
> Yours is the experience of an illegal breeder of fighting roosters.
>
> > "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> > experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> > whatever"
>
> True.
>
> > "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> > of consideration."
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> > moral consideration, and is given none"
>
> True.
>
> > ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> > a benefit at all"
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> > existing animals "benefit" from living."
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> > *IF* the livestock exist. "
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> > existing animals enjoy living."
>
> True.
>
> > "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> > can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> > a pre-existent state"
>
> True - and that's exactly what you assume, Fuckwit.
>
> Every one of those is a true statement, Fuckwit.  You lose, again.

Goo, you and truth are total strangers. You've never encountered each
other.


George Plimpton
2011-03-04 02:35:44 EST
On 3/3/2011 11:12 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:

>>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>> whatever"
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
>>> of consideration."
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
>>> moral consideration, and is given none"
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
>>> a benefit at all"
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
>>> existing animals "benefit" from living."
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
>>> *IF* the livestock exist. "
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>> existing animals enjoy living."
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> a pre-existent state"
>>
>> True - and that's exactly what you assume, Fuckwit.
>>
>> Every one of those is a true statement, Fuckwit. You lose, again.
>
> you and truth

...are the closest of friends.

Every one of those statements Goober Harrison copypastaed is true.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-05 03:46:57 EST
On Mar 4, 12:35 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 11:12 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> >>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> >>> whatever"
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> >>> of consideration."
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> >>> moral consideration, and is given none"
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> >>> a benefit at all"
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> >>> existing animals "benefit" from living."
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> >>> *IF* the livestock exist. "
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> >>> existing animals enjoy living."
>
> >> True.
>
> >>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> >>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> >>> a pre-existent state"
>
> >> True - and that's exactly what you assume, Fuckwit.
>
> >> Every one of those is a true statement, Fuckwit.  You lose, again.
>
> > you and truth
>
> ...are the closest of friends.
>
> Every one of those statements Goober Harrison copypastaed is true.-

Then why are you always disagreeing with youselves over them?

F*** dude! You gotta get someone to scope out your noggin. There's a
lot of weird shit happenin' in there.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


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