Vegetarian Discussion: Has Fuckwit David Harrison Finally Thrown In The Towel For Good?

Has Fuckwit David Harrison Finally Thrown In The Towel For Good?
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)

Rudy Canoza
2014-01-17 16:48:12 EST
He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
got him to admit:

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.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.

Mr.Smartypants
2014-01-18 14:21:16 EST
On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:48:12 PM UTC-7, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>
> got him to admit:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
>
>
> He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>
> drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.


How many pet food cows have you found, Goo?....oh.....my bad,....I forgot you threw in the towel on your own stupid idea and called it "fuckwitted and wrong".

D*@.
2014-01-27 17:57:01 EST
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:48:12 -0800, Goo lied:

>He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>got him to admit:
>
> 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.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
>He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.

"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo

"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.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration." - dh

"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo

"Something that isn't alive cannot benefit, AS
YOU'VE SAID, Fuckwit." - Goo

D*@.
2014-01-27 17:57:12 EST
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:21:16 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:
.
>On Friday, January 17, 2014 2:48:12 PM UTC-7, Goo wrote:
>> He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>>
>> got him to admit:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>>
>>
>> He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>>
>> drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.
>
>
>How many pet food cows have you found, Goo?....oh.....my bad,....I forgot you threw in the towel on your own stupid idea and called it "fuckwitted and wrong".

Goo and his goolings never could get anywhere with that stupid idea, though
they did try for quite a while. I imagine they all still believe it though. I
wonder if Rupert believes it too....

Rudy Canoza
2014-01-27 18:03:11 EST
On 1/27/2014 2:57 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On 1/17/2014 1:48 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>> got him to admit:
>>
>> 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.
>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>
>> He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>> drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.
>
> [excuse making snipped]

It wasn't a "mistake in terminology", *Gloo*. You believe it - you
don't believe the animals are "nothing", *Gloo*, you believe they are
*SOMETHING*:

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.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

You surrendered almost 15 years ago, Fuckwit.

D*@.
2014-01-29 18:41:57 EST
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:03:11 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:57:01 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:48:12 -0800, Goo lied:
>>
>>>He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>>>got him to admit:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>>
>>>He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>>>drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.
>>
>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo
>>
>>"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.
>>I don't believe that the individual animals exist
>>in any way before they are conceived, but I am
>>also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
>>as a result of the farming industry if nothing
>>(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
>>is a major aspect to take into consideration." - dh
>>
>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo
>>
>>"Something that isn't alive cannot benefit, AS
>>YOU'VE SAID, Fuckwit." - Goo
>
>It wasn't a "mistake in terminology", *Gloo*. You believe it

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

> - you don't believe the animals are "nothing"

I don't believe in the "animals" YOU admittedly believe exist in your
assumed "pre-existent state", Goo.

Rudy Canoza
2014-01-29 19:02:17 EST
On 1/29/2014 3:41 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 1/27/2014 3:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/27/2014 2:57 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On 1/17/2014 1:48 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>>>> got him to admit:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>>>>
>>>> He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>>>> drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.
>>>
>>> [excuse making snipped]
>>
>> It wasn't a "mistake in terminology", *Gloo*. You believe it - you
>> don't believe the animals are "nothing", *Gloo*, you believe they are
>> *SOMETHING*:
>>
>> 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.
>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> You surrendered almost 15 years ago, Fuckwit.
>
> I don't believe in the "animals"

Yes, you do. You believe non-existent animals are "something", Fuckwit.
You explicitly said so, on 09 Dec 1999.

It's too late to lie about it, Fuckwit.


Mr.Smartypants
2014-01-30 13:32:54 EST
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:02:17 PM UTC-7, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/29/2014 3:41 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>
> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>
> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
>
>
> > On 1/27/2014 3:03 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >> On 1/27/2014 2:57 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
> >>> On 1/17/2014 1:48 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> He should have done it no later than August 2000. That's when I finally
>
> >>>> got him to admit:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> He actually was defeated well before that, but that admission was what
>
> >>>> drove the final nail all but 1/10th of 1mm into his coffin.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> [excuse making snipped]
>
> >>
>
> >> It wasn't a "mistake in terminology", *Gloo*. You believe it - you
>
> >> don't believe the animals are "nothing", *Gloo*, you believe they are
>
> >> *SOMETHING*:
>
> >>
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> >>
>
> >> You surrendered almost 15 years ago, Fuckwit.
>
> >
>
> > I don't believe in the "animals"
>
>
>
> Yes, you do. You believe non-existent animals are "something", Fuckwit.
>
> You explicitly said so, on 09 Dec 1999.
>
>
>
> It's too late to lie about it, Fuckwit.


What about post-existence, Goobs? You briefly mentioned it at one point. Do you think animals are "something" in that state?

D*@.
2014-02-02 17:14:33 EST
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:32:54 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:02:17 PM UTC-7, Goo wrote:
>
>> It's too late to lie about it, Fuckwit.
>
>
>What about post-existence, Goobs? You briefly mentioned it at one point. Do you think animals are "something" in that state?

Goo has made it clear that he never did have any idea what he wanted people
to think he thought he was trying to talk about with that one. It's too bad the
stupid Goober has no clue, because I feel confident it would be stupidly
hilarious.

D*@.
2014-02-02 17:15:58 EST
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:02:17 -0800, Goo lied:

>On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:41:57 -0500, dh@. quoted Goo:
>
>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>> - you don't believe the animals are "nothing"
>>
>> I don't believe in the "animals" YOU admittedly believe exist in your
>>assumed "pre-existent state", Goo.
>
>Yes, you do.

Which particular "animals" are you trying to claim I believe in, Goo?
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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