Vegetarian Discussion: Is Anyone Fooled By The Goober?

Is Anyone Fooled By The Goober?
Posts: 98

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   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-01-04 13:53:51 EST
Goo keeps asking me the same questions all the
time. Then when I answer the fool, he HILARIOUSLY
snipps the answer because he can't oppose it, then
more hilariously/dishonestly/childishly/stupidly=Goobaly
claims that I haven't answered him. LOL...is anyone
ever stupid enough to be fooled by Goo when he attempts
to play such infantile tricks?

Leif Erikson
2006-01-04 13:57:23 EST
dh@. wrote:
> Leif keeps asking me the same questions all the
> time.

Because you keep failing to answer them, FUCKWIT.

Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
experience life"? Why do you think it is "better" for
the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
never exist? (Hint in answering that second one:
don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do
not.) Why do you think livestock exist for *any*
reason except to satisfy human wants?

Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game
failed?

Leif Erikson
2006-01-04 14:05:53 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison lied:

> Then when I answer

You haven't answered, Fuckwit. Not once.

Leif:
> WHY are you so obsessed with livestock existing,
Fuckwit?


Fuckwit, the ignorant homo redneck:
I'm free to give them as much consideration as
YOU/"ARAs"
want everybody to give to wildife



That is NOT an answer to the question asked, Fuckwit,
you gutless chickenshit no-fight punk. You're a punk,
Fuckwit - a craven, cowardly, takes-it-up-the-ass punk.

D*@.
2006-01-04 14:22:56 EST
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>*h@. wrote:
>> Goo keeps asking me the same questions all the
>> time.
>
>Because you keep failing to answer them,

I answer them and you snip the answers Goo.

>FUCKWIT.
>
>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>experience life"?

I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
lives of wildlife.

>Why do you think it is "better" for
>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>never exist?

Some of them have lives of positive value and some
do not, depending on quality of life, so that is how people
should think about it, NOT that all of it is evil wrongness as
YOU/"ARAs" try to make everyone believe it is:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <Mnj_d.6837$qW.2732@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix.1159@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>(Hint in answering that second one:
>don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do
>not.)

YOU/"ARAs" are unaware of how life can have positive value
for livestock, and most likely for anything else.

>Why do you think livestock exist for *any*
>reason except to satisfy human wants?
>
>Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game
>failed?

If you mean why do I believe YOU/"ARAs" attempt to
oppose the facts I point out, I don't believe it's because
you're too stupid to understand them. And I do know it's
because they work against what YOU/"ARAs" are trying
to get everyone to believe, and what you are trying to
accomplish:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <1109786836.098828.304510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <5r5Ud.7831$Ba3.3880@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm
animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more
just world.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Leif Erikson
2006-01-04 15:01:58 EST
c:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Does anyone think Fuckwit David Harrison has a clue?:
> >> Leif keeps asking me the same questions all the
> >> time.
> >
> >Because you keep failing to answer them,
>
> I answer them

You're lying, Fuckwit. You don't answer them. You *know* that if you
were to answer them truthfully, you'd expose your ass.



> >FUCKWIT.
> >
> >Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
> >obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
> >experience life"?
>
> I'm aware that

Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT.


> >Why do you think it is "better" for
> >the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
> >never exist?
>
> Some of them have lives of positive value

Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT. You see how easy it is for me,
Fuckwit? You're not answering the question, and that's a big part of
the point of asking them.


> >(Hint in answering that second one:
> >don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do
> >not.)
>
> YOU/"ARAs"

I'm not an "ara", Fuckwit, but of course you already knew that.


> are unaware of how life can have positive value
> for livestock,

STILL not an answer to the question, Fuckwit.

Coming into existence is not a benefit for aniamls, Fuckwit - not ever.
Life -per se- is not a benefit.


> >Why do you think livestock exist for *any*
> >reason except to satisfy human wants?
> >
> >Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game
> >failed?
>
> If you mean

I mean just what I asked, Fuckwit: your silly, stupid, juvenile game
of trying to trick "vegans" into thinking they're doing something "bad"
by wanting livestock to disappear has failed completely.


Dutch
2006-01-04 16:02:14 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>>experience life"?
>
> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
> lives of wildlife.

Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
"consideration" of yours?

>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>never exist?
>
> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
> do not

That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.



Ron
2006-01-04 19:01:16 EST

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>
> >>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
> >>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
> >>experience life"?
> >
> > I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> > much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
> > lives of wildlife.
>
> Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
> "consideration" of yours?
>
> >>Why do you think it is "better" for
> >>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
> >>never exist?
> >
> > Some of them have lives of positive value and some
> > do not
>
> That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.


You are an idiot Douche.

Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
you.


SlipperySlope
2006-01-05 02:27:25 EST
homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton wailed:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>>>>experience life"?
>>>
>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>>much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>>>lives of wildlife.
>>
>>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>>"consideration" of yours?
>>
>>
>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>>>never exist?
>>>
>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>>>do not
>>
>>That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
>
>
>
> You are an

Fuck off, Ronnie, you punk-ass felcher.

No animals "benefit" from "getting to experience life".
The only thing from which you'd benefit is a sock in
the jaw. Fuck off, punk.

Dutch
2006-01-05 14:57:14 EST

"Ron" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>> >>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>> >>experience life"?
>> >
>> > I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>> > much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>> > lives of wildlife.
>>
>> Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>> "consideration" of yours?
>>
>> >>Why do you think it is "better" for
>> >>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>> >>never exist?
>> >
>> > Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>> > do not
>>
>> That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
>
>
> You are an idiot Douche.

Are you agreeing with Singer's view of the Salatin farm?

> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
> their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
> you.

There are no livestock that are allowed to live out their "normal life
span". If and when you find any that are, then we *may* be able to argue
this utilitarian concept, even then it's very dubious. Arguing that we
should continue to raise livestock because "some of them" (undefined) have
lives of positive value is ridiculous.



Ron
2006-01-05 19:04:07 EST

SlipperySlope wrote:
> homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton wailed:
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >><dh@.> wrote
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
> >>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
> >>>>experience life"?
> >>>
> >>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> >>>much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
> >>>lives of wildlife.
> >>
> >>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
> >>"consideration" of yours?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
> >>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
> >>>>never exist?
> >>>
> >>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
> >>>do not
> >>
> >>That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
> >
> >
> >
> > You are an
>
> Fuck off, Ronnie, you punk-ass felcher.
>
> No animals "benefit" from "getting to experience life".
> The only thing from which you'd benefit is a sock in
> the jaw. Fuck off, punk.


delivered by a 4 foot tall, 300 lb. dwarf who prances around in
Victoria's Secret lingerie and terrorizes women?.........I think not.

Now go play with your gerbils Goo.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   Next  (First | Last)


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