 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralRural LivingHome AutomationSecurity AlarmsConstructionRepairPlumbingCleaningPest ControlLawn and Garden |
Homeowner Forum / Rural Living / July 2008Goo's dishonest denial:
"No." - 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. GooFuckwit David Harrison, self-identified pig-f.cking cracker - 08/01/2000 > 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. > GooFuckwit David Harrison, self-identified pig-f.cking cracker - > 08/01/2000 Tell us about raising cows to become pet food, Boobs. >> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be >> born if nothing prevents that from happening, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Tell us about raising cows to become pet food, Boobs. _________________________________________________________ Ron asked: >So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance >and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in >the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of >supplying the pet food industry? Goo replied: Yes. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ Ron pointed out: >You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become >PET FOOD. Goo replied: Some are. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ And Goo believes it to be true! What I wrote was a mistake in terminology, which Goo knows I actually corrected in the very next sentence: "in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo, Jun 2001 As we can see this is one of the clearest and most blatant of Goo's lies, and one he must have repeated a hundred times or more over the years. Here is the rest of the quote which the Goober was momentarily honest enough to acknowldege one time seven years ago ( which is really quite a lot for Goo ) : "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, Jan 2000 Right from the start I've admitted my mistake: "As I've admitted on many many occasions, that was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent beings can experience anything." - dh, May 2003 and we can see that this particular lie the Goober keeps repeating was old and tired five years ago...well, longer ago than that. Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupidest pig-f.cking cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge: >>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be >>> born if nothing prevents that from happening, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent > beings can experience anything." - dh, May 2003 You were just trying to avoid having to answer for your foolishness, Goo. You *HAVE* to believe that "they" can experience things, Goo, because you said they can several other times: What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? Fuckwit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. Fuckwit - 10/19/1999 If you keep an animal from being born which would have been born without your interference, you have denied life to it, whether it actually exists or not. Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu You keep trying to get out of the trap in various desperate ways, Goo, and you just can't *EVERYTHING* you have written, Goo - Goo - is based on your deeply held belief that "vegans" are trying to do something bad to "pre-existent" animals. Existing animals don't figure into it in any way, Goo. You believe "pre-existent" animals are real, Goo - Goo - and you believe they have interests that demand our "consideration" today: 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're f.cked, Goo. There's no way out of it. You're just f.cked. On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Goo lied: >dh pointed out: >> _ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You were just trying to avoid having to answer for your foolishness, >Goo. You *HAVE* to believe that "they" can experience things Do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe that you are stupid enough to believe that, Goo? Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison, of course - will always find a way to become more stupid. Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-f.cking cracker in all Georgia, lied: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote: > >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-f.cking cracker in all Georgia, lied: >>> _ >>> "As I've admitted on many many occasions, that >>> was a mistake Not a mistake, Goo. You're lying about that, as I have *proved*. >> You were just trying to avoid having to answer for your foolishness, >> Goo. You *HAVE* to believe that "they" can experience things > > Do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe We *know*, Goo, that you're stupid enough to believe that non-existent entities can experience a "loss", "denial", "unfairness", and so on. You've said so. > Goo - that's Fuckwit David Harrison, of course - will always find a way > to become more stupid. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > entities can experience a "loss", "denial", "unfairness", and so on. > You've said so. And you said you believe in the pre-existent state so are you suggesting that when you were in the pre-existent state that you would have no clue as to whether or not you'd feel a "loss" if you hadn't been born? BTW, how's my system time? Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupidest pig-f.cking cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge: >>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be >>> born if nothing prevents that from happening, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent > beings can experience anything." - dh, May 2003 You were just trying to avoid having to answer for your foolishness, Goo. You *HAVE* to believe that "they" can experience things, Goo, because you said they can several other times: What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? Fuckwit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. Fuckwit - 10/19/1999 If you keep an animal from being born which would have been born without your interference, you have denied life to it, whether it actually exists or not. Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu You keep trying to get out of the trap in various desperate ways, Goo, and you just can't *EVERYTHING* you have written, Goo - Goo - is based on your deeply held belief that "vegans" are trying to do something bad to "pre-existent" animals. Existing animals don't figure into it in any way, Goo. You believe "pre-existent" animals are real, Goo - Goo - and you believe they have interests that demand our "consideration" today: 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're f.cked, Goo. There's no way out of it. You're just f.cked. > Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupidest pig-f.cking cracker in existence > - blabbered and presented no challenge: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > You're f.cked, Goo. There's no way out of it. You're just f.cked. That sounds *exactly* the situation Rupert has you in, Boobs. Doesn't it? >On Jul 25, 6:48 am, the Goober wrote: > >> You're just f.cked. > >That sounds *exactly* the situation Rupert has you in, Boobs. >Doesn't it? He tries to create the impression that it's the same, but it's not. I doubt Rupert has lied about anything, where in contrast to that I am confident that the Goober has lied about much, and quite possibly has lied about everything in that case. In my case I have not lied about anything and have no reason to. Goo in contrast feels that he does have reason to lie, and therefore has lied about a number of things. In this particular case of mine afaik Goo has never been honest about any of it at all. In fact the Goober is so far from being honest that he can't even acknowledge what I really believe, much MUCH less could he ever begin to refute it. We could not find a more inept, complete and total failure than Goo. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.