Fuckwit David Harrison: never forget this

Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 10:20:10 -0800, Rudy Canoza got it right:
>
> >attempts to
> >portray me as an "ara" have gone nowhere.
>
> Regardless of where any attempts may have gone

My attempts at defining you went HERE, Fuckwit:

You are NOT an "ar" opponent at all, Fuckwit:

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

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

You are a mutant "ara", Fuckwit. A weird, dirty, low-life cracker who
believes in a mutant, irrational, absurd form of "ar".

Do you still bathe in Lake Lanier?
 >> Stay informed about: Fuckwit David Harrison: never forget this 

On 8 Mar 2005 10:20:10 -0800, the Gonad wrote:

>attempts to
>portray me as an "ara" have gone nowhere.

Regardless of where any attempts may have gone
to portray you in some way, we are secure with the fact
that this is how you want people to feel about the
elimination of domestic animals, i.e. "Animal Rights":
_________________________________________________________
We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way.
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer.
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent lives for the animals we raise for food]
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights.
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >> Stay informed about: Fuckwit David Harrison: never forget this 

Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 10:20:10 -0800, Rudy Canoza shed light:
>
> >attempts to
> >portray me as an "ara" have gone nowhere.
>
> Regardless of where any attempts may have gone
> to portray you in some way

They have gone nowhere, Fuckwit, but I *have* defined
you: you are a
stupid, semi-literate, mutant "ara".

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

That says it all, Fuckwit. It was not a mistake - it
is your deeply held belief. It's mutant "ar".
 >> Stay informed about: Fuckwit David Harrison: never forget this 

Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 10:20:10 -0800, Rudy Canoza got it right:
>
> >attempts to
> >portray me as an "ara" have gone nowhere.
>
> Regardless of where any attempts may have gone

My attempts at defining you went HERE, Fuckwit:

You are NOT an "ar" opponent at all, Fuckwit:

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

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

You are a mutant "ara", Fuckwit. A weird, dirty,
low-life cracker who
believes in a mutant, irrational, absurd form of "ar".

Do you still bathe in Lake Lanier?
 >> Stay informed about: Fuckwit David Harrison: never forget this