Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit's Irrational Beliefs

Fuckwit's Irrational Beliefs
Posts: 13

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)

George Plimpton
2011-03-22 11:35:11 EST
Here's a segment of dialogue between Fuckwit David Harrison and Derek,
regarding the most fuckwitted of all Fuckwit quotes ("Yes, it is the
unborn animals..."). Fuckwit was desperately, frantically, trying to
undo the damage - the indelible stain - that attached to him from the
quote, and was all but denying having written itin the first place:


Derek:
The moving finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half of a line
Nor shall your tears wash out a word of it.
Edward Fitzgerald

Fuckwit:
Whatever. I told [Plimpton] that I don't believe nonexistent animals
can experience a loss, and mentioned it in the next sentence after
his piss-poor prize quote. But he is absolutely desperate for some
type of argument against the facts I point out for what is most
likely some weird personal reasons, so he has to cling to any
little thing he can get and show it off for whoever will read it.

Derek:
I couldn't resist letting you read that Edward Fitzgerald quote
again. It fits your dilemma with [Plimpton] over that damn
paragraph so perfectly. In fact, every time I see you re-edit it, I
can't stop myself refering to that quote. What part of it are you
trying to move away from, or do you just want to scrap the whole lot?

Fuckwit:
The part about unborn animals experiencing a loss. I'm aware that
they don't exist, and are nothing. [Plimpton] believes that "they"
ARE something, so he's a bigger nitwit than I am in that regard.

Fuckwit then offered up this comment I made in response to his *false*
claim that he considers the unborn animals to be "nothing":


Fuckwit:
For one thing, even if I did actually believe that nothing is
capable of experiencing a loss [...]

Prof. Plimpton:
No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.


But it is *Fuckwit*, not I, who believes the unborn animals are
"something", and he knows it. In fact, there is one almost-as-stupid
quote from Fuckwit in which he *explicitly* says the unborn farm animals
are "more than just 'nothing'":


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


And there are others in which he *clearly* demonstrates a belief that
unborn farm animals are not "nothing", but rather he sees them as
morally considerable "somethings" that can experience loss, unfairness,
deprivation of what is "due" to them, and even have "enemies":

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

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Goo/Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Goo/Fuckwit - 01/08/2002


When I wrote "No, not 'nothing'; 'something': the unborn animals", I
was very clearly and knowledgeably writing about *Fuckwit's* view of the
unborn animals - *he* is the one who considers them "somthing". Fuckwit
views the unborn farm animals as morally considerable "somethings", and
he fancies himself the defender of their "interests", none more than
their alleged "interest" in coming into existence.

Fuckwit is completely nuts.

Prediction: Fuckwit will not respond to this massive, crippling
indictment of his fucked-up thinking. Instead, he will blabber some
evasive bullshit in his fuckwitted cracker "English" - a twisted,
tortured, turgid mess of English words that rarely comprise coherent
English composition. That's why he is Fuckwit.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-22 12:51:47 EST
On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> squealed like a
little girl:

>      Prof. Plimpton:
>      No, not "nothing"; "something":  the unborn animals.
>

So once again Goo's belief in pre-existence is on display for all the
world to see.


George Plimpton
2011-03-22 13:07:55 EST
On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> squealed like a
> little girl:
>
>> Prof. Plimpton:
>> No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.
>>
>
> So once again Goo's belief

No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".


> in pre-existence

*Fuckwit's* belief in pre-existence:

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

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

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

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Goo/Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Goo/Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

But you already knew that.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-22 13:22:52 EST
On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  squealed like a
> > little girl:
>
> >>       Prof. Plimpton:
> >>       No, not "nothing"; "something":  the unborn animals.
>
> > So once again Goo's belief
>
> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>


Nonsense. You believe in pre-existence.


George Plimpton
2011-03-22 13:35:33 EST
On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> squealed like a
>>> little girl:
>>
>>>> Prof. Plimpton:
>>>> No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.
>>
>>> So once again Goo's belief
>>
>> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
>> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>>
>
>
> Nonsense.

Nope. Fuckwit believes in pre-existence. Apparently, so do you.

George Plimpton
2011-03-22 13:50:46 EST
On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> squealed like a
>>> little girl:
>>
>>>> Prof. Plimpton:
>>>> No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.
>>
>>> So once again Goo's belief
>>
>> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
>> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>>
>
>
> I believe in pre-existence.
>

That figures.


Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-22 14:11:16 EST
On Mar 22, 10:50 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    squealed like a
> >>> little girl:
>
> >>>>        Prof. Plimpton:
> >>>>        No, not "nothing"; "something":  the unborn animals.
>
> >>> So once again Goo's belief
>
> >> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
> >> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>
> > I believe in pre-existence.
>
> That figures.-



The only arguments you win are the ones you script yourself. Have you
noticed that, Goo?

Everyone else has.


George Plimpton
2011-03-22 14:31:24 EST
On 3/22/2011 11:11 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:50 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> squealed like a
>>>>> little girl:
>>
>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton:
>>>>>> No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.
>>
>>>>> So once again Goo's belief
>>
>>>> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
>>>> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>>
>>> I believe in pre-existence.
>>
>> That figures.-
>
> [snarky do-nothing 40+ year old douchebag's ranting snipped]

You and Fuckwit believe in pre-existence. You're both dopes.



Dutch
2011-03-22 15:16:41 EST


"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ceeea889-fec9-4a2a-bd99-b6cab4255d7e@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 10:50 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> >> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> squealed like a
>> >>> little girl:
>>
>> >>>> Prof. Plimpton:
>> >>>> No, not "nothing"; "something": the unborn animals.
>>
>> >>> So once again Goo's belief
>>
>> >> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
>> >> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>>
>> > I believe in pre-existence.
>>
>> That figures.-
>
>
>
> The only arguments I win are the ones I script myself. Have you
> noticed that?
> Everyone else has.

> Goo

I noticed that a long time ago. You learned it from your co-Goo, fuckwit.



Mr.Smartypants
2011-03-29 12:05:21 EST
On Mar 22, 11:31 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 3/22/2011 11:11 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:50 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2011 10:22 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 22, 10:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2011 9:51 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 8:35 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      squealed like a
> >>>>> little girl:
>
> >>>>>>         Prof. Plimpton:
> >>>>>>         No, not "nothing"; "something":  the unborn animals.
>
> >>>>> So once again Goo's belief
>
> >>>> No, Fuckwit's belief - I was clearly talking about Fuckwit's view that
> >>>> the "future farm animals" [gag] are morally considerable "somethings".
>
> >>> I believe in pre-existence.
>
> >> That figures.-
>
> > [snarky do-nothing 40+ year old douchebag's ranting snipped]
>
> You and Fuckwit believe in pre-existence.  You're both dopes.-


You believe some cows are raised for TWELVE YEARS for the sole purpose
of becoming pet food.

Can you give us some idea how many cows per year are raised for that
purpose, Goo?

After all you *are* Clueless Goo the Pet Food Guru. If you can't tell
us then who can?



Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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