Vegetarian Discussion: No Consideration For Animals' Lives

No Consideration For Animals' Lives
Posts: 124

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 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Delma T. Ivey
2012-08-02 16:44:37 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.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs



Rupert
2012-08-03 05:03:28 EST
On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
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.
>

Not very likely to be true, and extremely boring and unimportant.

George Plimpton
2012-08-03 10:45:10 EST
On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> 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.
>>
>
> Not very likely to be true

It is true.


Rupert
2012-08-03 10:46:36 EST
On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> > 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.
>
> > Not very likely to be true
>
> It is true.

I was aware that that was your opinion. I don't believe that this
opinion of yours has a rational foundation.

George Plimpton
2012-08-03 10:56:39 EST
On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>> It is true.
>
> I was aware that that was your opinion.

It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.


Rupert
2012-08-03 10:58:21 EST
On aug. 3, 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> >>> 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.
>
> >>> Not very likely to be true
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > I was aware that that was your opinion.
>
> It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.

You're boring.

I2i
2012-08-03 11:06:35 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0455a90-8882-4f62-b97f-4acec245d6c4@n13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
On aug. 3, 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> >>> 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.
>
> >>> Not very likely to be true
>
> >> It is true.
>
> > I was aware that that was your opinion.
>
> It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.

>You're boring.

you dipshit dumbfucks that keep
repeating this crossposted thread
ad nauseum ad infinitum are all
way beyond boring.


George Plimpton
2012-08-03 13:38:19 EST
On 8/3/2012 7:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 3, 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>>>> It is true.
>>
>>> I was aware that that was your opinion.
>>
>> It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.
>
> You're boring.

Sure I am. <chortle> That's why you reply to every post I make.


George Plimpton
2012-08-03 13:38:51 EST
On 8/3/2012 8:06 AM, i2i wrote:
>
> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e0455a90-8882-4f62-b97f-4acec245d6c4@n13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> On aug. 3, 16:56, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 7:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> > On aug. 3, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> >> On 8/3/2012 2:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
>> >>> 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.
>>
>> >>> Not very likely to be true
>>
>> >> It is true.
>>
>> > I was aware that that was your opinion.
>>
>> It's not merely my opinion; it's a fact.
>
>> You're boring.
>
> you dipshit dumbfucks that keep
> repeating this crossposted thread
> ad nauseum ad infinitum are all
> way beyond boring.

Rupert is wobbly. That's not boring.


Dutch
2012-08-03 13:53:30 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Aug., 22:44, "Delma T. Ivey" <somewh...@thegreatbeyond.con>
> 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.
>>
>
> Not very likely to be true, and extremely boring and unimportant.
>

It is unquestionably true, and if you are not challenging him on that
issue then there's no reason to be responding to him at all.
"Consideration" in fuckwit lingo means racking up points every time a
livestock animal "gets to experience life" that it would not have gotten
otherwise (provided it is a decent life as Salt says). The Logic of the
Larder is the only even marginally interesting idea he has, and that's
because it is so spectacularly illogical and dimwitted.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


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