Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid pig-****ing cracker in all Georgia,
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid pig-****ing cracker in all
Georgia, lied and presented no challenge:
No challenge, Goo.
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid pig-****ing cracker in all
Georgia, lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Rudy M. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or
>>>>> even to humans" - Rudy O. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other
>>>>> animals." - Rudy P. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is
>>>>> not a benefit at all" - Rudy Q. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> "I have examined the question at length, and feel
>>>>> there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>>>>> is not a benefit." - Rudy T. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>>>> I was before." - Rudy W. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>>> "Life is not a gain" - Rudy Z. Canoza
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>> All true statements above
>>> How can you think we were never talking about
>>> whether or not existing beings benefit
>> From this, ****wit, you greasy queer:
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.
****wit - 12/09/1999
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.
****wit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
****wit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
****wit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
>
> LOL!!!
Yeah, it's pretty funny you wouldn't realize that those things prove you
said what I always claimed you did. They prove that you *ALWAYS* and
*ONLY* have been pissing and moaning, in your stupid pig-****ing cracker
way, about non-existent animals.
|
