Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison: Explain Your Illogic

Fuckwit David Harrison: Explain Your Illogic
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-02-05 14:46:21 EST
You wrote:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

"aras" believe it is wrong to end the lives of animals
in order to eat them Fuckwit; and contrary to your
lying, they *have* explained why they believe it to be
wrong.

So: given their explanation of why it's wrong, why do
*YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same
animals from getting to have any life at all"? Why,
Fuckwit?

D*@.
2006-02-06 10:46:32 EST
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:

>"aras" believe it is wrong to end the lives of animals
>in order to eat them Fuckwit; and contrary to your
>lying, they *have* explained why they believe it to be
>wrong.

They probably have *not*, and the only way for you
to show that they have is to present some example(s),
which you *can not*. That's how it works Goo.

Leif Erikson
2006-02-06 11:16:25 EST
The subject is "Explain your illogic", Fuckwit.
EXPLAIN. Stop dodging, you GUTLESS cocksucker, and
explain your illogic. You cannot dodge.


Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>
>>"aras" believe it is wrong to end the lives of animals
>>in order to eat them Fuckwit; and contrary to your
>>lying, they *have* explained why they believe it to be
>>wrong.
>
>
> They probably have *not*,

They have, and you *know* they have. You are lying,
Fuckwit.

Repost:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

"aras" believe it is wrong to end the lives of animals
in order to eat them Fuckwit; and contrary to your
lying, they *have* explained why they believe it to be
wrong.

So: given their explanation of why it's wrong, why do
*YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same
animals from getting to have any life at all"? Why,
Fuckwit?

D*@.
2006-02-06 11:50:11 EST
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:

>given their explanation of why it's wrong

Which is?

Leif Erikson
2006-02-06 13:10:08 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison *UNSUCCESSFULLY* attempted to dodge with:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Leif wrote:
>
> >given their explanation of why it's wrong
>
> Which is?

We're talking about YOUR illogic, Fuckwit, which you will explain:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999


Why do *YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same animals
from getting to have any life at all"? Why, Fuckwit? Answer the
question, Fuckwit.


Ron
2006-02-06 19:30:04 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison *UNSUCCESSFULLY* attempted to dodge with:
> > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Leif wrote:
> >
> > >given their explanation of why it's wrong
> >
> > Which is?
>
> We're talking about YOUR illogic, Fuckwit, which you will explain:
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>
>
> Why do *YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same animals
> from getting to have any life at all"? Why, Fuckwit? Answer the
> question, Fuckwit.


Sl-o-o-o-w down Leif. Use your *inside* voice.

I've rarely seen you so agitated.

You better go lie down before you blow a gasket.


Dutch
2006-02-07 04:12:58 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>>"aras" believe it is wrong to end the lives of animals
>>in order to eat them Fuckwit; and contrary to your
>>lying, they *have* explained why they believe it to be
>>wrong.
>
> They probably have *not*, and the only way for you
> to show that they have is to present some example(s),
> which you *can not*. That's how it works Goo.

You need to learn to see when you're beat fuckwit.



D*@.
2006-02-07 12:27:17 EST
On 6 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison *UNSUCCESSFULLY* attempted to dodge with:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Leif wrote:
>>
>> >given their explanation of why it's wrong
>>
>> Which is?
>
>We're talking about YOUR illogic, Fuckwit, which you will explain:
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>
>
>Why do *YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same animals
>from getting to have any life at all"? Why, Fuckwit? Answer the
>question, Fuckwit.

If the reason it's wrong is because it takes their life, it should
be worse to prevent life from happening at all. Now you need to
argue that your wildlife would exist instead, even though you can't
say which wildlife, or why anyone should want to promote their
lives instead.

Leif Erikson
2006-02-07 12:55:30 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On 6 Feb 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison *UNSUCCESSFULLY* attempted to dodge with:
> >> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 Leif wrote:
> >>
> >> >given their explanation of why it's wrong
> >>
> >> Which is?
> >
> >We're talking about YOUR illogic, Fuckwit, which you will explain:
> >
> > That approach is illogical, since if it
> > is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> > *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> > getting to have any life at all.
> > Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
> >
> >
> >Why do *YOU* believe it to be "*far worse* to keep those same animals
> >from getting to have any life at all"? Why, Fuckwit? Answer the
> >question, Fuckwit.
>
> If the reason it's wrong is because it takes their life, it should
> be worse to prevent life from happening at all.

WHY, Fuckwit? You're merely repeating your claim, not explaining it.
WHY would it be bad, in any way, to prevent the life from happening?


D*@.
2006-02-08 13:24:47 EST
On 7 Feb 2006, the Goober wondered:

>dh pointed out:

>> If the reason it's wrong is because it takes their life, it should
>> be worse to prevent life from happening at all.
>
>WHY, Fuckwit?

Because if you think it's wrong to provide and take life simply
because you think the life should be longer, it follows that you
*should* think it's worse to prevent what life animals *would*
have had if someone like you/"aras" didn't *prevent* them. But
of course Goo this is based on my guess that what you consider
to be the wrongness, is your idiotic belief that the animals raised
for food are somehow cheated out of what you think should be
*more* life. If you think longer life for them is so important, it
would certainly be inconsiderate of you to prevent them from
having what life they could have simply because it bothers you
for people to eat meat. Since you/"aras" absolutely REFUSE to
explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong to kill them--even as you
hilariously boast that it has been explained many times while not
providing a single example--I can only guess what your reason is,
and then consider how stupid you are from my own interpretation
of what you/"aras" consider to be the wrongness.

If you/"aras" want to finally explain WHY you think it's wrong
to kill animals for food, and the reason is *not* that you think it
somehow cheats them out of life they otherwise would have had,
should have had, or whatever... then just explain WTF else you
think is wrong with it.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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