Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - No Consideration For Animals' Lives

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - No Consideration For Animals' Lives
Posts: 40

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
2013-08-09 10:47:57 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.



Kitty P
2013-08-09 12:46:21 EST
IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?

Kitty (quiet vegetarian)



"George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote in message
news:8d75e$5205011e$414e828e$22864@EVERESTKC.NET...
> 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.
>
>



George Plimpton
2013-08-09 13:04:13 EST
On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
> IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
> people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
> lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
> actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
> issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?

I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
"benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
notion is pure bullshit.

I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
However, Fuckwit does not help to show that "veganism" is illogical
nonsense by throwing his own illogical bullshit nonsense at it. The
problem with "veganism" is that it is predicated on an abject logical
fallacy.


>
> "George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote in message
> news:8d75e$5205011e$414e828e$22864@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>


Mr.Smartypants
2013-08-09 22:27:57 EST
On Friday, August 9, 2013 11:04:13 AM UTC-6, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> > IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>
> > people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>
> > lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>
> > actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>
> > issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>
> > alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>
> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>
> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>
> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>
> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>
> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>
> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>
> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>
> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>
> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>
> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>
> notion is pure bullshit.
>
>
>
> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.


When, where, and how did you do that, Goober?





>
> However, Fuckwit does not help to show that "veganism" is illogical
>
> nonsense by throwing his own illogical bullshit nonsense at it. The
>
> problem with "veganism" is that it is predicated on an abject logical
>
> fallacy.
>

Produce the evidence of that, Goober.



Rupert
2013-08-10 00:17:04 EST
On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:04:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> > IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>
> > people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>
> > lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>
> > actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>
> > issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>
> > alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>
> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>
> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>
> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>
> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>
> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>
> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>
> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>
> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>
> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>
> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>
> notion is pure bullshit.
>
>
>
> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>

Veganism is a practice of refraining from consuming certain products. It is not possible to show that a practice is illogical nonsense. You might be able to show that some of the arguments that some people put forward for the practice of veganism are illogical nonsense.

> However, Fuckwit does not help to show that "veganism" is illogical
>
> nonsense by throwing his own illogical bullshit nonsense at it. The
>
> problem with "veganism" is that it is predicated on an abject logical
>
> fallacy.
>
>

If someone believes that veganism is an effective strategy for reducing their contribution to suffering and that motivates them to be vegan, then that is not a logical fallacy.

George Plimpton
2013-08-10 01:25:06 EST
On 8/9/2013 9:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:04:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>>
>>> IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>>
>>> people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>>
>>> lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>>
>>> actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>>
>>> issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>>
>>> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>>
>> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>>
>> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>>
>> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>>
>> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>>
>> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>>
>> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>>
>> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>>
>> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>>
>> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>>
>> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>>
>> notion is pure bullshit.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>>
>
> Veganism is a practice of refraining from consuming certain products.

Based on a fake principle based in turn on a logical fallacy.


Dutch
2013-08-10 02:21:12 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>> >I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>
> When, where, and how did you do that, Goober?


Please, me, me, look at me, reply to me, I'm important too.


Rupert
2013-08-10 02:39:24 EST
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:25:06 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 9:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:04:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>
> >>
>
> >>> people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>
> >>
>
> >>> lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>
> >>
>
> >>> actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>
> >>
>
> >>> issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>
> >>
>
> >>> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>
> >>
>
> >> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>
> >>
>
> >> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>
> >>
>
> >> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>
> >>
>
> >> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>
> >>
>
> >> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>
> >>
>
> >> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>
> >>
>
> >> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>
> >>
>
> >> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>
> >>
>
> >> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>
> >>
>
> >> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>
> >>
>
> >> notion is pure bullshit.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Veganism is a practice of refraining from consuming certain products.
>
>
>
> Based on a fake principle based in turn on a logical fallacy.

Veganism is based on different things for different people who practice veganism.

What principle were you referring to?

George Plimpton
2013-08-10 02:47:29 EST
On 8/9/2013 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:25:06 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/9/2013 9:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:04:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> notion is pure bullshit.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Veganism is a practice of refraining from consuming certain products.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on a fake principle based in turn on a logical fallacy.
>
> Veganism is based on different things for different people who practice veganism.

"veganism" is completely based on the false belief that not consuming
animal parts means one's "lifestyle" causes no harm to animals.


Rupert
2013-08-10 02:53:28 EST
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 8:47:29 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:25:06 AM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 8/9/2013 9:17 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:04:13 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 8/9/2013 9:46 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> IIf the end game is to encourage people to not eat meat, trying to shame
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> people will ensure failure. Sharing great recipes without meat goes a whole
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> lot farther. But if encouraging cessation to the slaughtering of animals
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> actually isn't your end game, then you make those who are serious about the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> issue look bad with this kind of nonsense. Could you take
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy off of your emails list?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I'm not trying to get anyone to eat or not eat anything. This is about
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> the ethical analysis of the human use of animals. Fuckwit David
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Harrison has been trying futilely for more than 14 years to make the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> case that "vegans", by not eating meat and therefore not doing anything
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> to bring more livestock animals into existence, are not giving some
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> undefined "consideration" to the moral meaning of animals "getting to
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> experience life," as he puts it in his wretchedly shitty and
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> semi-literate cracker way of speaking. Fuckwit believes that coming
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> into existence - "getting to experience life" - is some kind of
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> "benefit" to livestock animals, and that omnivores are therefore giving
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> the animals a briefly enjoyed "gift" by causing them to exist. That
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> notion is pure bullshit.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I am an omnivore who has shown that "veganism" is illogical nonsense.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Veganism is a practice of refraining from consuming certain products.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Based on a fake principle based in turn on a logical fallacy.
>
> >
>
> > Veganism is based on different things for different people who practice veganism.
>
>
>
> "veganism" is completely based on the false belief that not consuming
>
> animal parts means one's "lifestyle" causes no harm to animals.

So, how did you come to that conclusion?
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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