Vegetarian Discussion: No Consideration For Animals' Lives

No Consideration For Animals' Lives
Posts: 38

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2012-05-03 13:48:02 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 13 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

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

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

Mr.Smartypants
2012-05-03 14:14:20 EST
On May 3, 11:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
>          I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
>          to make the effort.
>          Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.

All you care about are the choice cuts from the EXTRA livestock you
think are being raised....somewhere.

Rupert
2012-05-04 13:06:09 EST
On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
>          I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
>          to make the effort.
>          Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.

Big deal.

I2i
2012-05-04 13:24:51 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> to make the effort.
> Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.

>Big deal.


so just what the hell does this have
to do with being short and fat ?


Rupert
2012-05-04 13:28:44 EST
On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > to make the effort.
> > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> >Big deal.
>
> so just what the hell does this have
> to do with being short and fat ?

Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.

I2i
2012-05-04 13:43:52 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5-a284-60432083bfa3@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > to make the effort.
> > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> >Big deal.
>
> so just what the hell does this have
> to do with being short and fat ?

>Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
>completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.

halleluja ! praze da lawd !


Mr.Smartypants
2012-05-04 15:53:35 EST
On May 4, 11:43 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5-a284-60432083bfa3@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > > to make the effort.
> > > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> > >Big deal.
>
> > so just what the hell does this have
> > to do with being short and fat ?
> >Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
> >completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
>
> halleluja ! praze da lawd !

Do you mean "lord" or "lard"?

I2i
2012-05-05 00:33:03 EST

"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a130881f-7d59-4f12-a1ef-aa6d07edd1ef@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 11:43 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5-a284-60432083bfa3@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > > to make the effort.
> > > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> > >Big deal.
>
> > so just what the hell does this have
> > to do with being short and fat ?
> >Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
> >completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
>
> halleluja ! praze da lawd !

>Do you mean "lord" or "lard"?

there's a difference ?


Mr.Smartypants
2012-05-05 01:35:59 EST
On May 4, 10:33 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a130881f-7d59-4f12-a1ef-aa6d07edd1ef@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 11:43 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5-a284-60432083bfa3@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > > > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > > > to make the effort.
> > > > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > > > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > > > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> > > >Big deal.
>
> > > so just what the hell does this have
> > > to do with being short and fat ?
> > >Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
> > >completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
>
> > halleluja ! praze da lawd !
> >Do you mean "lord" or "lard"?
>
> there's a difference ?

the lard might not think so but the lord might.

I2i
2012-05-05 02:29:41 EST

"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5c7800aa-5946-4244-801b-6b0b2cf522fa@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 10:33 pm, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a130881f-7d59-4f12-a1ef-aa6d07edd1ef@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 11:43 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5fca1335-ea06-4dd5-a284-60432083bfa3@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 5, 3:24 am, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8534a58d-61cc-45f2-8042-a7bcb0119522@s10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 4, 3:48 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> 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 13 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
>
> > > > I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> > > > to make the effort.
> > > > Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
>
> > > > Goo only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
> > > > meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Goo enjoys watching.
> > > >Big deal.
>
> > > so just what the hell does this have
> > > to do with being short and fat ?
> > >Absolutely nothing. Even on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian the OP is a
> > >completely boring and pointless waste of bandwidth.
>
> > halleluja ! praze da lawd !
> >Do you mean "lord" or "lard"?
>
> there's a difference ?

>the lard might not think so but the lord might.

thinking lard ? thinking lord?
i've never seen them together
in the same place at the same
time and those big thick black
glasses don't fool me one bit.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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