| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? Fuckwit Ha |
 |
|
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
| Quote: |
On 21 May 2007 19:57:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched as always, blabbered and
lied:
On 17 May 2007 15:18:03 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever, blabbered:
On 15 May 2007 12:24:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Here's a fact for you, Fuckwit: animals do not "benefit" by coming
into existence.
Without referring to your pathetic ines try to explain why not,
Done, thousands of times, but here's a refresher: a benefit is
something that improves the welfare of an entity that exists. Prior
to coming into existence, the livestock animals are not entities,
By referring to your pathetic ines
Speak English, Fuckwit.
Coming into existence *cannot* be a "benefit", Fuckwit, as I have
shown.
and have no welfare to be improved upon. THEREFORE, Goober Fuckwit, by
the rules of logic, coming into existence *cannot* be a "benefit", by
definition.
You already know this, Goober Fuckwit, because I have told it to you
thousands of times.
It doesn't matter Rudy.
It *does* matter, Goober Fuckwit. The definitions and the logic both
are correct. You lose.
Your imaginary ines
Write English, you pathetic Goober cracker.
Let's see you fail
|
No failure, Goober Fuckwit. I have shown you the logic
and the definition many times. You can't dispute the
definition and you can't refute the logic.
You lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:52:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
On 17 May 2007 13:48:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value" - Dutch
which of course makes you even worse.
No. Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful *IF* the
livestock exist.
Of course Rudy, but you can't appreciate how or why
even then.
No, *not* "of course", Fuckwit. YOU, you stupid fuckwit, "think" the lives are meaningful *BEFORE* the livestock exist. You "think" there is some morally compelling reason FOR the livestock to exist, but there isn't. You are wrong, and stupid.
Okay Rudy,
|
Yes, "okay", Goober Fuckwit: you "think" the lives of
livestock are morally meaningful before they occur, and
that is wrong and stupid and illogical. You are a
stupid fuckwit, Goober Fuckwit. You lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:a296539e3b9h5ltelpinbl5udoanj6ii11@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 22 May 2007 07:14:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:ejl4535rgsj1an5js9lsa9vclh4kt1499n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:33:13 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message
news:i4ap43t947ij8s48q1ol0ared02k6a1570@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:22:21 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote
What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?
Anything? If so, please PLEASE present it.
It's immaterial. When you are being judged on how you raise your
children
it
is never material that "Without you they would never have existed".
If you raise them with love and kindness you are judged as a good
parent,
if
you abuse and neglect them you are judged as a bad parent. The fact
that
you
were essential in bringing them into existence never enters into it.
The same goes for livestock, if you raise them with love and kindness
you
are judged as a good husbander of animals, if you abuse and neglect
them
you
are judged as a bad husbander of animals. The fact that you were
essential
in bringing them into existence never enters into it.
If you brought them into the world to kill them it would
Nope, that doesn't follow, bringing them into existence never enters
into
the equation.
If people were to consider the idea of raising children for food:
Their
lives, how they would be raised, how long they would live, what they
would be fed, what they would be taught, etc..., would certainly be
given much thought and consideration. You really should be able to
understand that much even if you could never get beyond any more
details than those.
That whole paragraph was incoherent.
It considers details that are beyond your ability to comprehend.
The point behind presenting them was to demonstrate your inability
to comprehend, so thanks for backing me up like that.
Nobody raises children to be food, but
if they did that would disqualify those people from claiming any moral
credit they might otherwise be entitled to for "giving them life".
Whether it would or not the details I presented--and more!--would
be taken into consideration by those making the decisions.
You may kill animals to feed yourself wether you bring them
into existence or not, assuming they are not owned by someone else or
protected by law.
You failed to mention what you consider to be most important,
which is that you feel it somehow becomes unacceptable to raise
animals for food if we consider their lives as well as their deaths.
The idea is so insane that you can't even attempt to explain why
you think it is the case, but we both know that you do.
No, I don't. Thinking stupidly about raising animals for food as you do
has
no impact whatsoever on whether or not it acceptable. It simply reflects
weaknesses in mental ability and character on your part.
Of course that's how I view your complete lack of ability to
consider the animals. Your few dishonest attempts to pretend
that you could possibly have some consideration for animals' lives:
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch
is simply a pathetic attempt to grab credit that you in no way are
entitled to, and never will be entitled to.
|
It's not an attempt to grab credit, it's a fact, raising livestock does not
cause more animals to be born and "experience life", it cause different ones
to be born and "experience life", and there is no objective reason for
anyone to have a preference towards livestock aside from the fact that they
are useful. The notion that people do something wrong by "denying life" to
livestock is nonsense, literally nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? Fuckwit Ha |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:39:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
On 21 May 2007 19:57:24 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched as always, blabbered and
lied:
On 17 May 2007 15:18:03 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever, blabbered:
On 15 May 2007 12:24:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Here's a fact for you, Fuckwit: animals do not "benefit" by coming
into existence.
Without referring to your pathetic ines try to explain why not,
Done, thousands of times, but here's a refresher: a benefit is
something that improves the welfare of an entity that exists. Prior
to coming into existence, the livestock animals are not entities,
By referring to your pathetic ines
Speak English, Fuckwit.
Coming into existence *cannot* be a "benefit", Fuckwit, as I have
shown.
and have no welfare to be improved upon. THEREFORE, Goober Fuckwit, by
the rules of logic, coming into existence *cannot* be a "benefit", by
definition.
You already know this, Goober Fuckwit, because I have told it to you
thousands of times.
It doesn't matter Rudy.
It *does* matter, Goober Fuckwit. The definitions and the logic both
are correct. You lose.
Your imaginary ines
Write English, you pathetic Goober cracker.
Let's see you fail
No failure, Goober Fuckwit. I have shown you the logic
|
Your supposed "logic" requires an acceptance of some incredibly
significant value to your fantasy about imaginary nonexistent "entities"
Goob, which is something else that you can't present even the slightest
evidence of. There is no significance to your fantasy for anyone other
than you, and possibly your boy Dutch.
| Quote: |
and the definition many times.
|
You have never been able to present such a definition Goobs, you
can't do it now, and you will never be able to, Goo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in message news:a296539e3b9h5ltelpinbl5udoanj6ii11@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 07:14:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:ejl4535rgsj1an5js9lsa9vclh4kt1499n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:33:13 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message
news:i4ap43t947ij8s48q1ol0ared02k6a1570@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:22:21 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote
What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?
Anything? If so, please PLEASE present it.
It's immaterial. When you are being judged on how you raise your
children
it
is never material that "Without you they would never have existed".
If you raise them with love and kindness you are judged as a good
parent,
if
you abuse and neglect them you are judged as a bad parent. The fact
that
you
were essential in bringing them into existence never enters into it.
The same goes for livestock, if you raise them with love and kindness
you
are judged as a good husbander of animals, if you abuse and neglect
them
you
are judged as a bad husbander of animals. The fact that you were
essential
in bringing them into existence never enters into it.
If you brought them into the world to kill them it would
Nope, that doesn't follow, bringing them into existence never enters
into
the equation.
If people were to consider the idea of raising children for food:
Their
lives, how they would be raised, how long they would live, what they
would be fed, what they would be taught, etc..., would certainly be
given much thought and consideration. You really should be able to
understand that much even if you could never get beyond any more
details than those.
That whole paragraph was incoherent.
It considers details that are beyond your ability to comprehend.
The point behind presenting them was to demonstrate your inability
to comprehend, so thanks for backing me up like that.
Nobody raises children to be food, but
if they did that would disqualify those people from claiming any moral
credit they might otherwise be entitled to for "giving them life".
Whether it would or not the details I presented--and more!--would
be taken into consideration by those making the decisions.
You may kill animals to feed yourself wether you bring them
into existence or not, assuming they are not owned by someone else or
protected by law.
You failed to mention what you consider to be most important,
which is that you feel it somehow becomes unacceptable to raise
animals for food if we consider their lives as well as their deaths.
The idea is so insane that you can't even attempt to explain why
you think it is the case, but we both know that you do.
No, I don't. Thinking stupidly about raising animals for food as you do
has
no impact whatsoever on whether or not it acceptable. It simply reflects
weaknesses in mental ability and character on your part.
Of course that's how I view your complete lack of ability to
consider the animals. Your few dishonest attempts to pretend
that you could possibly have some consideration for animals' lives:
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch
is simply a pathetic attempt to grab credit that you in no way are
entitled to, and never will be entitled to.
It's not an attempt to grab credit,
|
Yes it is. Everything you do and all you are capable of, is trying to
obtain the most moral browny points...whatever "they" are.
| Quote: |
it's a fact, raising livestock does not
cause more animals to be born and "experience life", it cause different ones
to be born and "experience life", and there is no objective reason for
anyone to have a preference towards livestock aside from the fact that they
are useful.
|
If you hadn't slipped up and accidently been honest once in the past
a person could wonder if you truly were ignorant enough to believe that,
but you did accidently reveal the fact that do know better:
"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Dutch
In fact in that huge mistake you made by your accidental honesty, you
even let people know you believe it's "obvious". Sometimes--like this
time--mistakes you made in the past return to shine a brilliant spotlight
on lies you're trying to get away with right now.
| Quote: |
The notion that people do something wrong by "denying life" to
livestock is nonsense, literally nonsense.
|
Agreed. But providing decent lives of positive value is still a significant
aspect of human influence on animals, whether you "aras" hate it or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:35 GMT, the Goober wrote:
| Quote: |
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:52:43 GMT, the Goober wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
On 17 May 2007 13:48:37 -0700, the Goober wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value" - Dutch
which of course makes you even worse.
No. Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful *IF* the
livestock exist.
Of course Goobs, but you can't appreciate how or why
even then.
No, *not* "of course", Fuckwit. YOU, you stupid fuckwit, "think" the lives are meaningful *BEFORE* the livestock exist. You "think" there is some morally compelling reason FOR the livestock to exist, but there isn't. You are wrong, and stupid.
Okay Goober, then try to explain how you think you
disagree with yourself about this one, if you have any
clue at all.
Yes, "okay"
|
Then try to explain it Goo, *IF!* you have any clue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? Fuckwit Ha |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007, the lamest of Goobers ineptly maundered:
| Quote: |
dh pointed out:
Your supposed "logic" requires an acceptance of some incredibly
significant value to your fantasy about imaginary nonexistent "entities"
Goob, which is something else that you can't present even the slightest
evidence of.
Not "supposed", Fuckwit. It is *the* correct logic.
|
Before it could even be considered, you would first HAVE to explain
how your concept of imaginary nonexistent entities could possibly
prevent existing entities from benefitting from anything Goo. Since
you can't even try to do that--though I certainly encourage you to
make an effort Goobs--you can't provide anything to even consider.
| Quote: |
There is no significance to your fantasy for anyone other
than you, and possibly your boy Dutch.
and the definition many times.
You have never been able to present such a definition Goobs, you
can't do it now, and you will never be able to, Goo.
I have presented it *many* times
|
There is absolutely no evidence of that at all, my Goober.
NONE!
| Quote: |
you're wasting your time here.
|
Only because you're so completely inept Goob. If you could do
anything that you claim to be able to, then you'd have something
to offer and I would learn something. It's you and your ineptitude
that makes it a waste, Goo. So all I get out of it is the satisfaction
of pointing out how lame you are, and then enjoy watching you
prove it over and over and over and over...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:52:08 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch
is simply a pathetic attempt to grab credit that you in no way are
entitled to, and never will be entitled to.
It's not an attempt to grab credit,
Yes it is. Everything you do and all you are capable of, is trying to
obtain the most moral browny points...whatever "they" are.
Projection, brownie points is exactly what you are trying to gain for
"providing decent lives of positive value". It's what the LoL is all about.
I discredit the LoL as cheap sophistry.
it's a fact, raising livestock does not
cause more animals to be born and "experience life", it cause different
ones
to be born and "experience life", and there is no objective reason for
anyone to have a preference towards livestock aside from the fact that
they
are useful.
If you hadn't slipped up and accidently been honest once in the past
a person could wonder if you truly were ignorant enough to believe that,
but you did accidently reveal the fact that do know better:
"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Dutch
That doesn't mean we ought to raise more farm animals, or that we're bad if
we don't.
|
That certainly doesn't reduce the significance of providing lives of
positive value in the least tiny little bit. But since you can't appreciate
the significance at all, you're necessarily incapable of understanding
anything about that at all. Duh.
| Quote: |
In fact in that huge mistake you made by your accidental honesty, you
even let people know you believe it's "obvious". Sometimes--like this
time--mistakes you made in the past return to shine a brilliant spotlight
on lies you're trying to get away with right now.
The notion that people do something wrong by "denying life" to
livestock is nonsense, literally nonsense.
Agreed.
Then quit pretending that ARAs are proposing something immoral with their
"elimination agenda". It's not immoral per se,
|
Calling it "animal rights" is contemptible and immoral right from the
start. It gets more dishonest AND lamer the more we look into it from
there.
| Quote: |
it is simply unwise, impractical and something we disagree with.
|
You think it would be better to leave the land to wildlife, even
though you can't say to which wildlife, much less why it would
be better, or what it would be better for.
| Quote: |
But providing decent lives of positive value is still a significant
aspect of human influence on animals, whether you "aras" hate it or not.
The "positive value" part is morally significant when compared against the
alternative which is "negative value" i.e poor husbandry practices leading
to suffering.
|
"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Dutch
| Quote: |
The "providing lives" part is NOT morally significant
|
It certainly is an aspect to consider when considering whether or
not it's cruel to THEM to be raised for food. You're just completely
incapable of doing that.
| Quote: |
as compared with the
alternative to that, which is deciding to never raise those animals at all.
That has no moral content.
|
You are in no position to impose any such restriction, but it's
still amusing that you think you are for some reason.
| Quote: |
When you say the phrase, "providing decent lives of positive value is
significant" you employing sophistry by conflating a significant aspect with
one which has no significance, attempting to leave the impression that both
have moral significance.
|
Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.
The biggest question remains: Why did you ever want to try to
persuade people to believe that you can understand something:
"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences)
are beneficial to animals." - Dutch
that you are admittedly not only clueless about, but you don't
even believe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:24 GMT, Goo wrote:
| Quote: |
uckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied::
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:35 GMT, Goo wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
Okay Goober, then try to explain how you think you
disagree with yourself about this one, if you have any
clue at all.
Yes, "okay"
Then try to explain it Goo, *IF!* you have any clue...
Done, many dozens of times, Fuckwit. Go back and
reread it.
|
LOL! You dreamed it Goobs, which is exactly why neither
of us can find even a trace of it. You've become so deluded
that you think your dreams are reality even though you
can't find any evidence of their existence while you're
awake. Start keeping a pad and pen nearby when you
sleep, and see if you can write down whatever it is you
think you're trying to talk about if you can ever remember
it long enough after you wake up. It would be interesting
to learn what you think you believe, if you can ever
remember what you think it is, Goo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in message news:gil4535g9gp4jbetbi4nccuh5kohkdob6b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:1aap43tqetjfe34lj5um80jmub4fmkd78l@4ax.com...
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as usual, lied:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as usual, lied:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,
There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.
That doesn't follow, there's no valid reason to give their lives
consideration.
It is necessary in order to consider all the significant
aspects
of human influence on them.
It isn't necessary at all,
It is in order to consider all the significant aspects of human
influence on them.
It's a complete red herring.
The fact you're referring to is self evident.
It's irrelevant,
|
Not to people in favor of decent AW.
| Quote: |
that is self-evident.
Unless they are bred they won't exist,
That fact proves the fact you referred to in such a remarkably
dishonest way.
It proves nothing,
|
Yes it does, but you can't comprehend what.
| Quote: |
it's a self-evident fact which has no moral importance.
therefore there is no human influence,
That's just a blatant lie.
It's a self-evident fact
|
It's a lie.
| Quote: |
which should not even need to be said.
|
Such lies should never be told at all.
| Quote: |
that *is* true, but not worth mentioning.
Do you have any idea what you mean by that?
Yes, I know exactly what I mean by it. The fact that livestock animals only
exist because of our appetites and need for products
|
Proves that you were lying blatantly when you said: "there is no human
influence". So--as is usually the case with you--the question arises:
WHY are you lying THIS time??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:20 GMT, Goo wrote:
| Quote: |
dh pointed out:
On 17 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700, Goo wrote:
dh pointed out:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
dh asked the lamest of Goobers:
What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?
There is no REASON to give any moral consideration to whether or not
they exist.
It is NECESSARY in order to
No. It is not necessary for anything.
Obviously not for anything you are capable of.
There is nothing of which you are capable that I am
not,
|
Then try to explain how lives of positive value:
"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful *IF* the
livestock exist. " - Goo
ever are meaningful in regards to livestock, Goo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? Fuckwit Ha |
|
|
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always, lied:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
Your supposed "logic" requires an acceptance of some incredibly
significant value to your fantasy about imaginary nonexistent "entities"
Goob, which is something else that you can't present even the slightest
evidence of.
Not "supposed", Fuckwit. It is *the* correct logic.
Before it could even be considered
|
It is the correct logic, Fuckwit: an entity must
*already* exist before it can benefit from anything.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, coming into existence itself cannot
be a benefit.
You lose.
| Quote: |
There is no significance to your fantasy for anyone other
than you, and possibly your boy Dutch.
and the definition many times.
You have never been able to present such a definition Goobs, you
can't do it now, and you will never be able to, Goo.
I have presented it *many* times
There is absolutely no evidence of that
|
There is seven and a half years of evidence of it,
Goober Fuckwit.
| Quote: |
you're wasting your time here.
Only because
|
Only because you're a stupid cracker hillbilly whose
time is worthless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always, lied:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied::
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
Okay Rudy, then try to explain how you think you
disagree with yourself about this one, if you have any
clue at all.
Yes, "okay", Goober Fuckwit: you "think" the lives of livestock are morally meaningful before they occur, and that is wrong and stupid and illogical. You are a stupid fuckwit, Goober Fuckwit. You lose.
Then try to explain it Rudy
Done, many dozens of times, Fuckwit. Go back and reread it. Waste your own time, Fuckwit - you are too stupid and talentless to waste mine.
You lose, Fuckwit. Coming into existence is not a "benefit" to farm animals, and therefore "vegans" wishing to eliminate livestock are not doing any non-existent "future farm animals" any disservice, as you stupidly and wrongly claim they are. You lose.
LOL! You dreamed it Rudy
|
No. I demonstrated it conclusively, dozens of times.
You lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On 17 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?
There is no REASON to give any moral consideration to whether or not
they exist.
It is NECESSARY in order to
No. It is not necessary for anything.
Obviously not for anything you are capable of.
There is nothing of which you are capable that I am
not,
Then try to explain how lives of positive value
|
One only needs to think about that if the animals
exist. If they never exist, no reason to think about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:gt6e539ch6sc0gvvldog3qv0nni6btqel4@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:gil4535g9gp4jbetbi4nccuh5kohkdob6b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message
news:1aap43tqetjfe34lj5um80jmub4fmkd78l@4ax.com...
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as usual, lied:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as usual, lied:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,
There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.
That doesn't follow, there's no valid reason to give their lives
consideration.
It is necessary in order to consider all the significant
aspects
of human influence on them.
It isn't necessary at all,
It is in order to consider all the significant aspects of human
influence on them.
It's a complete red herring.
The fact you're referring to is self evident.
It's irrelevant,
Not to people in favor of decent AW.
|
Yes to them especially. People genuinely concerned with AW are completely
uninterested in the notion that livestock somehow benefit from coming into
existence. The idea contributes nothing of value to the discussion.
| Quote: |
that is self-evident.
Unless they are bred they won't exist,
That fact proves the fact you referred to in such a remarkably
dishonest way.
It proves nothing,
Yes it does, but you can't comprehend what.
|
It possibly shows that you're a fool, but that is also self-evident.
| Quote: |
it's a self-evident fact which has no moral importance.
therefore there is no human influence,
That's just a blatant lie.
It's a self-evident fact
It's a lie.
|
Unless they are bred they won't exist is a fact.
| Quote: |
which should not even need to be said.
Such lies should never be told at all.
|
It's a self-evident fact that should not even need to be mentioned.
| Quote: |
that *is* true, but not worth mentioning.
Do you have any idea what you mean by that?
Yes, I know exactly what I mean by it. The fact that livestock animals
only
exist because of our appetites and need for products
Proves that you were lying blatantly when you said: "there is no human
influence". So--as is usually the case with you--the question arises:
|
The entire sentence reads, "Unless they are bred they won't exist, therefore
there is no human influence."
An animal that is never born is not influenced by us, cannot be deprived of
welfare" or "denied life". All of those statements which you either made
explicitly or directly implied in some form are nonsensical sophistry.
| Quote: |
WHY are you lying THIS time???
|
Why are you pretending that my factual arguments are lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
129 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
