David Harrison is inferior to "chico"
 

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched, blabbered:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:40:57 -0500, chico wrote:

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched, blabbered:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 11:26:24 -0500, chico wrote:

Radium wrote:
Chico is ever worse than Rudy Canoza.

David Harrison respects non-human animals
No, David's pro-cockfighting and pro-dogfighting. He's even bred
fighting animals,
I'm opposed to dog fighting
Liar.

I'm opposed to it.

Liar. You used to participate in dogfighting.


But I can also feel good about the care I gave my own game
fowl because I learned to take great care of them
Except they're dead because you put them in a cage with other roosters
for a few bucks.

I've never heard of anyone doing that.

That's what cockfighting is, cocksucker, and you did it.


and hope
that some descendants of chickens I raised are enjoying decent
lives of positive value today.
Coming into existence is not a benefit, Gilligan.

How does your obsession with imaginary
nonexistent entities prevent existing entities
from benefitting from their existence?

No, YOUR obsession with non-existent - but *not*
imaginary, ****wit; you misused the word - entities:

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 David Harrison - 08/01/2000

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 David Harrison - 12/09/1999


You are maniacally *OBSESSED* with a fear that
non-existent entities will be "denied" existence. Why
is that, ****wit?

David Harrison is inferior to "chico"
 

On Thu, 03 May 2007 Goo lied:

dh pointed out:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:40:57 -0500, chico wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 11:26:24 -0500, chico wrote:

Radium wrote:
Chico is ever worse than Rudy Canoza.

David Harrison respects non-human animals
No, David's pro-cockfighting and pro-dogfighting. He's even bred
fighting animals,
I'm opposed to dog fighting
Liar.

I'm opposed to it.

Liar.

That's a lie.

You used to participate in dogfighting.

You still do Goo, but I've never had anything at all to do with it.

But I can also feel good about the care I gave my own game
fowl because I learned to take great care of them
Except they're dead because you put them in a cage with other roosters
for a few bucks.

I've never heard of anyone doing that.

That's what cockfighting is,

LOL! Goober, the cockfighting you have participated in is obviously
something I would be disgusted even to hear about, so don't bother
going on about it. You Californians favor the knife and I hate that
just to start with, so I don't even want to hear about whatever
sick cages you like to use probably because you use dunghill birds
that aren't even game, and you would have to chase most of them
down to get your knife back because they don't want to fight. You
sure are one sick Goober, Goo.

cocksucker, and you did it.

Not like you apparently have Goobs...which is another way I can
be glad that I'm not like you. But now that you're pretending to think
a tiny bit, let's get back to that quiz you're so afraid of...
____________________________________________
Goober quiz:

You make it obvious that you think of cock fighting and
dog fighting both in the same way, and you disagree that
they should be thought of differently. That is necessarily
because you either:

a) can't think of any reason(s) why cock fighting and dog
fighting should be thought of significantly differently.

or

b) are able to think of some reason(s) why they could be
thought of differently, but don't consider any such reason(s)
to be significant enough for people to do so.

Try and see if you can figure out if a) applies to you, or if
b) applies to you. Go!



How does your obsession with imaginary
nonexistent entities prevent existing entities
from benefitting from their existence?

No

Right Goob, it does not. Okay Goober now comes an
incredibly hard part for you and it's going to hurt you badly,
but try to explain why you think nothing benefits from coming
into existence.