Vegetarian Discussion: No Consideration For Animals' Lives

No Consideration For Animals' Lives
Posts: 72

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 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2012-06-11 11:18:22 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

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.

Rupert
2012-06-11 13:25:15 EST
On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>
>          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.

Why did you just make the same utterly pointless post *again*?

George Plimpton
2012-06-11 14:51:33 EST
On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>>
>> 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.
>
> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless

It isn't.


> post *again*?

Animals do not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."

I2i
2012-06-12 00:38:31 EST

"George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote in message
news:oPadnVVDStClo0vSnZ2dnUVZ5u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>
> It isn't.
>
>
>> post *again*?
>
> Animals do not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."

the ones i fuck do


Rupert
2012-06-12 01:49:57 EST
On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>
> >>           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.
>
> > Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>
> It isn't.
>

What's the point?

> > post *again*?
>
> Animals do not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."

So what?

George Plimpton
2012-06-12 12:08:17 EST
On 6/11/2012 10:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>
> What's the point?

I'm afraid it's over your head.


>>> post *again*?
>>
>> Animals do not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."
>
> So what?

It's important to understand that.

Mr.Smartypants
2012-06-13 01:41:17 EST
On Jun 12, 10:08 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/11/2012 10:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>
> >>>>            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.
>
> >>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>
> >> It isn't.
>
> > What's the point?
>
> I'm afraid it's over your head.
>
> >>> post *again*?
>
> >> Animals do not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."
>
> > So what?
>
> It's important to understand that.

you don't understand anything, Goo.

Rupert
2012-06-13 03:15:09 EST
On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/11/2012 10:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>
> >>>>            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.
>
> >>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>
> >> It isn't.
>
> > What's the point?
>
> I'm afraid it's over your head.
>

Does it require a lot of intelligence to understand?

George Plimpton
2012-06-13 12:14:21 EST
On 6/13/2012 12:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/11/2012 10:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>>
>>>> It isn't.
>>
>>> What's the point?
>>
>> I'm afraid it's over your head.
>>
>
> Does it require a lot of intelligence to understand?

More than intelligence, what it requires is common sense that you lack.

Rupert
2012-06-14 02:22:16 EST
On Jun 13, 6:14 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 12:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 6/11/2012 10:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 11, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 6/11/2012 10:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jun 11, 5:18 pm, 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 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
>
> >>>>>>             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.
>
> >>>>> Why did you just make the same utterly pointless
>
> >>>> It isn't.
>
> >>> What's the point?
>
> >> I'm afraid it's over your head.
>
> > Does it require a lot of intelligence to understand?
>
> More than intelligence, what it requires is common sense that you lack.

So people with common sense can understand the point of your usenet
activity?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


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