| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dutch
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
 |
|
Rupert wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
complete nonsense. You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
you think otherwise.
|
If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Rupert wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
|
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
complete nonsense.
|
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem" - Goo
| Quote: | You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
you think otherwise.
|
"Existing animals don't figure into it in any way." - Goo.
"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"I win, no matter what I do." - Goo
"So, there is no point in mentioning my doctor." - Goo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Goo lied:
| Quote: | Rupert wrote:
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
|
You lied and said that you explained how you think pre-existent
entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their existence
Goo, but of course you didn't do it. You never have done it Goober
and you never will, nor will you be able to explain how anything else
prevents existing beings from benefitting from their existence. Some
don't Goob, but you can't even make a distinction between any
that do and any that don't. You're just far too inept, Goo. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge.
I am sure you are right that I ought to read Salt's essay.
_________________________________________________________ |
Logic of the Larder
by Henry S. Salt
Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914
It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is better for them to live and
to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit or pastime, when their life
is a fairly happy one.
[...]
Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life." But what is the moral to
be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and destroying life, to
pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more of it! But rather that we
should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves, and strive as far as
possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the larder is the very negation of
a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals is he whose larder is
fullest of them:
He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.
It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any truth in such an
argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions, and face the inevitable
conclusion.
[...]
[2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest
cattle would be the eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be
commended. And while, heretofore, the motive has not been for the sake
of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian convictions should spread
much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically incompatible)
blend with the love of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism.
With deeper insight, new and higher motives may replace or supplement
old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient practices." - Dr. Stanton Coit.
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
| Quote: | I was
actually aware that it is not necessary to declare that "pre-
existence" is nonsense in order to refute the Logic of the Larder.
However, it's not an error to declare that "pre-existence" is
nonsense, it most definitely is incoherent nonsense.
|
The Hindus will be disappointed. They might want you to explain
exactly how you found that bit of information out though, before they
go trying to change the beliefs they've held for thousands of years.
How did you find out, btw?
| Quote: | It is true that
we might conceivably be immortal souls who float about in the ether
and become "attached" to biological organisms when those organisms
come into existence. (Although we shouldn't give any credence to such
a possibility when making an argument in practical ethics with real-
life applications, because there's absolutely no evidence for such a
possibility.)
|
A person can feel that it's better for a being to experience its
life than for it not to, regardless of whether or not there's any
positive value to the Goober's supposed "state" of pre-existence.
I feel that way about a number of beings, in fact. You have acted
as if you do too, maybe, sometimes, you think, maybe, some things,
maybe, sometimes, maybe...
| Quote: | However, this still wouldn't alter the fact that it's
incoherent nonsense to talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-
existent entity". An entity can't exist before it exists.
|
That's another subject altogether. Just because Goo insists that
pre-existent entities somehow prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence doesn't mean you have to believe him. One
huge reason to suspect the Goober might be wrong in that, is his
complete inability to explain exactly how he thinks they manage to
do it. On the rare occasions when Goo makes some attemple to
explain what he thinks he's trying to talk about, it ALWAYS gets
down to pre-existent entities:
"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
| Quote: | We should
instead speak of a state which our soul is in before our body comes
into existence, or a soul existing prior to the existence of the body
to which it eventually becomes attached.
|
That's a different subject and you've already proclaimed that
"it most definitely is incoherent nonsense."
| Quote: | If David Harrison is allowed to make conjectures that there are souls
floating about in the ether which become attached to bodies
|
I don't. I consider the possibility of multiple lives but don't have
a true belief either way about it, and for some reason(s) people
feel it's important to lie about that claiming I have chosen to believe
in the way they actually think it's less likely that I do believe. You for
example almost certainly feel it's less likely that I do believe what you
just got through accusing me of, so in order to attempt to insult me
you accuse me of holding beliefs you know I will resent being accused
of holding because I don't hold them. It's very dishonest of you, and
far more dishonest than I had expected out of you, but even when I've
learned to expect very little from someone I still often tend to overestimate
them as in this example with you.
As for what I actually do believe (we'll see...maybe this will help
you come up with even more insulting lies about me ;¬) : I believe
that many beings do have lives of positive which it's better for them
to experience than not to, REGARDLESS of whether or not there
is a pre-existent state. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Another self-outstupidification by the Goober (was: Re: The |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Goo wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Goo wrote:
Mr. Harrison challenged the Goober:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Goo,
Yes, Mr. Harrison, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Mr. Harrison.
No challenge, Mr. Harrison. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
David Harrison's challenge was to explain something. You wrote "I just
did explain, you fucking Stupidist." So you did claim to have met
David Harrison's challenge.
|
Good point. The Goober claimed to have met the challenge--which
was a lie even though he made a pathetically feeble attempt--and then
he very blatantly and extremely stupidly denied the challenge he lied
about having met. Another classic self-outstupidification by our favorite
Goober: Goobernicus Gonad. When Goo outstupids himself to this
degree it always makes a person wonder how clueless he really is,
bringing to mind questions like:
1. How does Goo think he disagrees with himself this time?
2. How does Goo think he agrees with himself that pre-existent
entities--the consideration of which is essential to his supposed
explanation of the particular challenge he's dishonestly trying to
deny this time--somehow prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their existence? How does he think they do it? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 19, 4:17 pm, dh@. wrote:
| Quote: | I was
actually aware that it is not necessary to declare that "pre-
existence" is nonsense in order to refute the Logic of the Larder.
However, it's not an error to declare that "pre-existence" is
nonsense, it most definitely is incoherent nonsense.
The Hindus will be disappointed. They might want you to explain
exactly how you found that bit of information out though, before they
go trying to change the beliefs they've held for thousands of years.
How did you find out, btw?
|
By studying basic logic.
| Quote: | It is true that
we might conceivably be immortal souls who float about in the ether
and become "attached" to biological organisms when those organisms
come into existence. (Although we shouldn't give any credence to such
a possibility when making an argument in practical ethics with real-
life applications, because there's absolutely no evidence for such a
possibility.)
A person can feel that it's better for a being to experience its
life than for it not to,
|
Not better for the being, no.
| Quote: | regardless of whether or not there's any
positive value to the Goober's supposed "state" of pre-existence.
I feel that way about a number of beings, in fact. You have acted
as if you do too, maybe, sometimes, you think, maybe, some things,
maybe, sometimes, maybe...
However, this still wouldn't alter the fact that it's
incoherent nonsense to talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-
existent entity". An entity can't exist before it exists.
That's another subject altogether. Just because Goo insists that
pre-existent entities somehow prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence doesn't mean you have to believe him.
|
None of Ball's babbling has ever influenced my views about anything.
| Quote: | One
huge reason to suspect the Goober might be wrong in that, is his
complete inability to explain exactly how he thinks they manage to
do it. On the rare occasions when Goo makes some attemple to
explain what he thinks he's trying to talk about, it ALWAYS gets
down to pre-existent entities:
"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
|
This is a silly way to argue about the matter.
| Quote: | We should
instead speak of a state which our soul is in before our body comes
into existence, or a soul existing prior to the existence of the body
to which it eventually becomes attached.
That's a different subject and you've already proclaimed that
"it most definitely is incoherent nonsense."
|
No, you misunderstand me. What I'm proclaiming to be incoherent
nonsense is the idea of a being existing before it exists.
What I'm talking about above is not incoherent nonsense, it's just
completely lacking in rational foundation.
| Quote: | If David Harrison is allowed to make conjectures that there are souls
floating about in the ether which become attached to bodies
I don't. I consider the possibility of multiple lives but don't have
a true belief either way about it, and for some reason(s) people
feel it's important to lie about that claiming I have chosen to believe
in the way they actually think it's less likely that I do believe. You for
example almost certainly feel it's less likely that I do believe what you
just got through accusing me of, so in order to attempt to insult me
you accuse me of holding beliefs you know I will resent being accused
of holding because I don't hold them. It's very dishonest of you, and
far more dishonest than I had expected out of you, but even when I've
learned to expect very little from someone I still often tend to overestimate
them as in this example with you.
|
It's not dishonesty. I apologise if I have inadvertantly
misinterpreted you; it's just that that's the only coherent way to
make sense of it being a "benefit" to an animal that its body is
brought into existence. So I attribute that position to you by the
principle of charity.
| Quote: | As for what I actually do believe (we'll see...maybe this will help
you come up with even more insulting lies about me ;¬) : I believe
that many beings do have lives of positive which it's better for them
to experience than not to, REGARDLESS of whether or not there
is a pre-existent state.
|
As discussed many times, you can't say it's better for the being
because you're not comparing two outcomes in which the being exists,
you're comparing one in which the being exists and one in which the
being doesn't. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
| Quote: | Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
|
This doesn't address my point. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge, you should instead reject his question, saying
that any talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity" is
complete nonsense.
|
All of the below statements are true.
| Quote: | "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Rudy A. Canoza
|
Which is what you do, Goo.
| Quote: |
""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem" - Rudy B. Canoza
You wouldn't want there to be any suspicion that
you think otherwise.
"Existing animals don't figure into it in any way." - Rudy C. Canoza.
"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Rudy D. Canoza
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Rudy E. Canoza
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Rudy F. Canoza
"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Rudy G. Canoza
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Rudy H. Canoza
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was." - Rudy I. Canoza
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Rudy J. Canoza
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Rudy K. Canoza
"I win, no matter what I do." - Rudy L. Canoza |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
You lied
|
No.
| Quote: | and said that you explained
|
I did explain.
I didn't say I had met your challenge. I said you posed no challenge.
You didn't and you don't - you never have. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 4:13 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
If you'd just read Salt's short essay you would
realize that it is not necessary to declare that
"pre-existence" is nonsense in order to refute the
Logic of the Larder. In fact it would be an error to
deny categorically the existence of something of which
we have absolutely no knowledge.
I am sure you are right that I ought to read Salt's essay.
_________________________________________________________
Logic of the Larder
by Henry S. Salt
|
Which conclusively shows that animals do not "benefit" or "get something
from the arrangement" from being brought into existence.
QED |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, the low priest of Stupidism |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
|
No. It was not a challenge. It was a stupid cracker demand.
| Quote: | was to explain something. You wrote "I just
did explain, you fucking Stupidist." So you did claim to have met
David Harrison's challenge.
Good point.
|
Stupid, confused point. I explained the issue. You did not pose a
challenge; you never have. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rupert
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
| Quote: | Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity". It's
understandable that you would have forgotten this. You snipped it and
ignored it completely, as usual obviously have no interest in
listening to the actual point of what I was saying.
You can entertain the hypothesis that we are souls and that we existed
before we became attached to our current bodies. That is at least
coherent, although there is not the slightest reason for any rational
person to give any credence to it. But it is not appropriate to speak
of the state the souls were in before they became attached to their
current bodies as a "pre-existent state", or to speak of a soul before
it has become attached to any body as a "pre-existent entity". That is
a travesty of language. An entity cannot exist before it comes into
existence.
Let us assume that what you were actually doing was interpreting David
Harrison as saying that animals have souls which existed before they
became attached to the animals' bodies, and trying to refute David
Harrison's argument by saying "We can conjecture that an animal's soul
may actually have been better off before it became attached to its
current body." That's silly. That's just replying to one totally
unfounded conjecture with another totally unfounded conjecture. The
appropriate response is to say that the hypothesis that animals' souls
existed before they became attached to their current bodies is not
worth taking seriously. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Rupert wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
|
It certainly does. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: The same lack of *any* challenge from the incompetent bu |
|
|
Rupert wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 8:22 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:44 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker -
woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was
yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Rudy W. Canoza wrote:
Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare
Try explaining
I just did explain, you fucking Stupidist. Existence is not a benefit. You wrote shit on March 22, 2005. You write shit all the time, you stupid Stupidist.
No Rudy,
Yes, Goo, I just did. I have proved that coming into existence -
"getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, Goo.
No challenge, Goo. You have not, do not, and never will pose *any*
challenge to me, on anything. You cannot - you are incapable of it.
It seems to me that, rather than saying that you have met David
Harrison's challenge,
I didn't say that.
Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's challenge
No, that was Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's demand. Goo Fuckwit David
Harrison made no challenge - he cannot possibly present a challenge.
This doesn't address my point.
It certainly does.
You have a strange penchant for saying things which any dribbling
moron can see to be false.
|
No.
| Quote: | My point was that you were talking as though it makes some sense to
talk of a "pre-existent state" or a "pre-existent entity".
|
No, I wasn't. I have always ridiculed that. When I talk about
"pre-existent entity", it's always in quotes, to show that I'm talking
about Goo Fuckwit David Harrison's ridiculous reliance on the idea. His
bullshit depends on it, crucially. I disparage his bullshit, but to do
so I have to talk about his usage of "pre-existent entities". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
