Vegetarian Discussion: The Essential Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupid Cracker

The Essential Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupid Cracker
Posts: 75

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   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-06-20 01:46:02 EST
Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...


I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999



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



I can say that I respect the life of a dead
chicken.

Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006




Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006




Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006



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.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999



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



What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001



All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999



Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002



People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999



You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002



At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004

Immortalist
2007-06-20 12:20:24 EST
On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>

How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> post my spew as everyone else does.
> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>
> 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
>
> I can say that I respect the life of a dead
> chicken.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006
>
> Dave:
> I am suggesting that we have no reason to
> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
> wild animals
>
> Fuckwit:
> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
> think of either?
>
> Dave:
> Enlighten me.
>
> Fuckwit:
> Meat. Gravy.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>
> Dutch:
> Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
> food decent lives?
>
> Fuckwit:
> Not really.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006
>
> 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.
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> 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
>
> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>
> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
> food provides billions of beings with a place in
> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
> some of it.
> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>
> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
> what life has to offer [to animals].
> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004



Rudy Canoza
2007-06-20 13:24:16 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>>
>
> How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
> we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
> name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.

I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
ago.


> An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies blah blah blah...

You plodding, stupid fuck.



>
>> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
>> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
>> post my spew as everyone else does.
>> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>>
>> 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
>>
>> I can say that I respect the life of a dead
>> chicken.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006
>>
>> Dave:
>> I am suggesting that we have no reason to
>> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
>> wild animals
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
>> think of either?
>>
>> Dave:
>> Enlighten me.
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> Meat. Gravy.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>>
>> Dutch:
>> Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
>> food decent lives?
>>
>> Fuckwit:
>> Not really.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006
>>
>> 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.
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> 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
>>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> All of that has nothing to do with how many
>> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
>> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
>> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>>
>> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
>> food provides billions of beings with a place in
>> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
>> some of it.
>> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>>
>> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
>> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
>> have IMO.
>> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>>
>> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
>> future farm animals [of] living,
>> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>>
>> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
>> what life has to offer [to animals].
>> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004
>
>

D*@.
2007-06-20 15:58:39 EST
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:20:24 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>>
>
>How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
>we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
>name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>
>An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
>argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
>author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Goo also is fond of lying about what another person is saying.
In fact if the Goober were to stop lying, he would have little or
nothing left to "argue" with. I put argue in quotes of course
because as I've pointed out to Goob a number of times: resorting
to lying is really a form of giving up, not arguing or even addressing
the issue. It's the most dishonest form of cowardly retreat.

Rudy Canoza
2007-06-20 16:26:10 EST
On Jun 20, 12:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:20:24 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>
> >How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
> >we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
> >name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>
> >An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
> >argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
> >author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>
> Rudy also is fond of lying about what another person is saying.

No, Fuckwit. You have said *everything* I put into the FAQ. I have
never lied about your beliefs or about your writing, Fuckwit.


Immortalist
2007-06-21 00:05:04 EST
On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>
> > How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
> > we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
> > name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>
> I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
> ago.
>

I think I remember and the same identical problem has come up again.
Can you explain your request for a particular standard of worthiness
and why we should agree to it?

The Problem of the Criterion

A general argument against the invocation of any standard for
knowledge has come to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As
we have just seen, there have been disputes about standards of
knowledge. Some are about particular kinds of arguments that provide
evidence for knowledge claims. As we will see shortly, others are
about the degree of evidential support or reliability required for
knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument designed to
instill doubt that any such standard can be established.

Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the
dispute is to be settled rationally, there must be some means for
settling it. It would do no good of each side simply to assert its
position without argument. So how would a standard of knowledge (or
"criterion of truth," in the language of the Stoics) be defended? It
could only be defended by reference to some standard or other. If the
standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged.
If another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be
answered either by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another
standard. So either the process of invoking standards does not
terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in neither case would
the dispute be settled rationally.

Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question
whether he can justify his acceptance of his own theory of
justification. He rejects the appeal to a higher-order theory of
justification as well as dogmatic acceptance of the theory (p. 228).
This leaves only circularity, or a "loop" of justification. Lehrer
defends the loop of justification as being virtuous.

http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phildept/gjmattey.htm

old dead links to text
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm

> > An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies blah blah blah...
>
> You plodding, stupid fuck.
>

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is
substituted for evidence in an "argument."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

>
>
>
>
> >> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> >> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> >> post my spew as everyone else does.
> >> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>
> >> 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
>
> >> I can say that I respect the life of a dead
> >> chicken.
>
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006
>
> >> Dave:
> >> I am suggesting that we have no reason to
> >> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
> >> wild animals
>
> >> Fuckwit:
> >> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
> >> think of either?
>
> >> Dave:
> >> Enlighten me.
>
> >> Fuckwit:
> >> Meat. Gravy.
>
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
>
> >> Dutch:
> >> Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
> >> food decent lives?
>
> >> Fuckwit:
> >> Not really.
>
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006
>
> >> 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.
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
> >> 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
>
> >> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >> could have?
> >> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> >> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> >> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> >> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> >> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>
> >> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
> >> food provides billions of beings with a place in
> >> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
> >> some of it.
> >> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>
> >> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> >> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> >> have IMO.
> >> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>
> >> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> >> future farm animals [of] living,
> >> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>
> >> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
> >> what life has to offer [to animals].
> >> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Rudy Canoza
2007-06-21 02:10:33 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>>> How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
>>> we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
>>> name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>> I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
>> ago.
>>
>
> I think I remember and the same identical problem has come up again.
> Can you explain your request for a particular standard of worthiness
> and why we should agree to it?

I can't be bothered.

Immortalist
2007-06-21 12:41:54 EST
On Jun 20, 11:10 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Immortalist wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
> >>> How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
> >>> we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
> >>> name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
> >> I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
> >> ago.
>
> > I think I remember and the same identical problem has come up again.
> > Can you explain your request for a particular standard of worthiness
> > and why we should agree to it?
>
> I can't be bothered.

Why did you take the time to respond then, it appears to be a
dishonest approach. That is saying one thing and doing another, when
the reference is to the same thing. If you are consistent you will not
espond to what I have just said, unless you only practice this
principle some times but not at all times.


D*@.
2007-06-21 12:44:21 EST
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:05:04 -0700, Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Immortalist wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>>
>> > How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
>> > we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
>> > name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>>
>> I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
>> ago.
>>
>
>I think I remember and the same identical problem has come up again.
>Can you explain your request for a particular standard of worthiness
>and why we should agree to it?

I can explain the request and it has nothing to do with demanding
a standard of worthiness, but instead it's a cowardly way of trying
to avoid more occasions where his idiocy is pointed out. Apparently
you pointed it out pretty well in the past, and this is his lame, amusing
way of trying to avoid having it happen again. Too late though. He
already displayed his idiocy in a big way by trying to get away with
a stupid, dishonest, obvious, childish trick like that. Goo loses again.

The Goober makes a habit of not being able to explain himself.
He makes absurd claims--or in this case an absurd demand--without
even making an attempt to explain why any should go along with it.
One of his most recent failings is his inability to explain his claim that:

"NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence" - Goo

without refering to his obsession with some sort of "pre-existence state".
Whenever the Goober has tried to explain why he thinks nothing has
ever benefitted from living:

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence." - Goo

all he has been able to do is make claims about his imaginary
non-existent "entities". It appears poor Goob is too ashamed
to try explaining any more, desperately whimpering that he has
done so in the past, blah blah, when he responds to a challenge
to explain himself. Though the Goober himself is afraid to meet
the challenge, here is an example:

""Life" cannot be a benefit, or something "better" than
what was in place before, TO a being that doesn't
exist. But before they are conceived and then born,
animals don't exist. Thus, "life" CANNOT be a
"benefit" to animals" - Goo

Goo claims that somehow his imaginary non-existent "entities"
prevent existing ones from benefitting from their existence, but
can't explain how or why.

Rudy Canoza
2007-06-21 12:44:55 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:10 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> Immortalist wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 19, 10:46 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Just un-fucking-believable how stupid this cracker is...
>>>>> How are you going to get people to participate in your argument when
>>>>> we cant tell if it is racist or philosophical? If you get rid of the
>>>>> name calling stereotypes maybe we will consider you worthy of debate.
>>>> I dismissed you as unworthy of debate a couple of years
>>>> ago.
>>> I think I remember and the same identical problem has come up again.
>>> Can you explain your request for a particular standard of worthiness
>>> and why we should agree to it?
>> I can't be bothered.
>
> Why did you take the time to respond then, it appears to be a
> dishonest approach.

You know what they say: appearances can be deceiving.

See if you can answer your own question.


> That is saying one thing and doing another, when
> the reference is to the same thing.

I don't think so.


> If you are consistent you will not
> espond to what I have just said, unless you only practice this
> principle some times but not at all times.

You have a weird understanding of consistency. You're
just weird across the board.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


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