If livestock animals become extinct...

[George Plimpton]

..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must exist in
order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
out" on getting it.

Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
"denied" any benefits, either.

[Mr.Smartypants]

What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit, Goobs?

[dh]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 8:20�pm, Goo wrote:
>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." �A being must exist in
>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>> out" on getting it.
>>
>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>
>
>
>What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit, Goobs?

The stupid Goober still hasn't told us how he wants people to think he found
out what non-existence is like in order to make his comparison.

[Mr.Smartypants]

On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>

He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".

He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
condition that he was nothing before too.

[dh]

Goo insists that:

"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/2/2013 2:49 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton pooped his panties:
>
>> On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton pooped his panties:
>>>> On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must exist in
>>>>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>>>> out" on getting it.
>>>
>>>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>>>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>
>>>> What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit
>>>

>>> The stupid Goober still hasn't told us how he wants people to think he found
>>> out what non-existence is like in order to make his comparison.
>>
>>
>> He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>> when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>
>> He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>> his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>> condition that he was nothing before too.
>

> George insists that:

>
> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""

Here's the passage:

Douchebag Hamilton:
I asked what you were before you came into this existence and

Prof. Geo. Plimpton:
And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
anything.


That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
"nothing", *Goo*.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Indeed.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Goo, you said you were "nothing" prior to existing and that you are no
better off now (existing) than you were BEFORE (pre-existence)

Now you claim, "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""

Is this going to become another of your massive
selfoutstupidifications like your pet food cow thing?

[George Plimpton]

On 4/30/2013 2:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), shitgobbler wasted time:

>
>> On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must exist in
>>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>> out" on getting it.
>>>
>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>

>> [timewasting erased]
>
> The stupid

[Mr.Smartypants]

[dh]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 30, 3:11�pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>
>>>>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:

>>>>> >On Apr 26, 8:20�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> >> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." �A being must exist in
>>>>> >> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>>>> >> out" on getting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>> >> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>>>> >> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>

>>>>> >What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit, Goobs?
>>>>>
>>>>> � � The stupid Goober still hasn't told us how he wants people to think he found

>>>>> out what non-existence is like in order to make his comparison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>>>>when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>
>>>>He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>>>>his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>

>>> Goo insists that:
>>>
>>>"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>>
>>>Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>>

>>Here's the passage:
>>
>> Mr Hamilton:

>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>

>> the Goober:

>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"

>> anything.
>>
>>
>>That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
>>"nothing", *Goo*.

>

>Goo, you said you were "nothing" prior to existing and that you are no
>better off now (existing) than you were BEFORE (pre-existence)
>
>Now you claim, "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""

Goo believes they're in a pre-existent "state", and apparently believes that
when an entity "moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know" the
experience of life is never better than his supposed pre-existent "state" "no
matter its quality of live" - Goo

>Is this going to become another of your massive
>selfoutstupidifications like your pet food cow thing?

It already has. At first the Goober said what he now claims to know can't be
known, and the comparison he makes cannot be made:
_________________________________________________________
"we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - 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 for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo

"the comparison is nonsense and cannot be made." - Goo

"I *never* make such a comparison" - Goo

"I show, conclusively, that the comparison cannot be made." - Goo

"the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the
perspective of the entity, cannot be made" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Then all of a sudden Goo wants people to believe he mysteriously somehow found
out that which he previously claimed "one simply cannot know" and so wants
people to think he can now successfully make the comparison he previous claimed
"cannot be made" :
_________________________________________________________
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo

"Coming into existence was not a "benefit"
for me - it didn't improve my welfare. " - Goo

"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Come to think of it, maybe this is even more stupid than "Dutch's" unlearning,
and I guess it is more stupid than Rupert's inability to comprehend. The
stupidity of Goo's idea of having learned that which can't be known, along with
the stupidity behind the fact that the stupid Goober acts like he expects people
to take his word for having learned, puts Goo ahead of "Dutch" in
self-outstupidification. Thank you for causing me to think this through. So Goo
is in the lead in self-outstupidifications after all, holding the title for both
first and fourth place, imo. Thanks again.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Abozolutely NO ONE will ever be able to out-self-outstupid the Goober.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/6/2013 3:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, George Plimpton, *far* above Fuckwit David Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way, wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile pointless heckler, lied:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, George Plimpton, *far* above Fuckwit David Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way, wrote:
>>>>>>>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must exist in
>>>>>>>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>>>>>>> out" on getting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>>>>>>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if escaping pre-existence
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton, mentally above us in every way, still hasn't told us how he wants people to think

Because that's a nonsensical cracker construction, *Goo*. You need to
write in English.

>>>>>
>>>>> He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>>>>> when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>>
>>>>> He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>>>>> his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>> condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>>

>>>> Prof. Plimpton insists that:
>>>>
>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>>>
>>>> Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

*YOU* know what it means, *Goo*:

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

"The animals that will be raised for us to eat" in future do not exist
now, *Goo*, but you believe they "...are more than just 'nothing'". So,
when you wrote "whatever the hell that's supposed to mean", as if you
didn't know what it meant, you were lying, *Goo* - again.

You always lie, *Goo*, and I always catch you.


>>>
>>> Here's the passage:
>>>
>>> Douchebag Hamilton:

>>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>>

>>> Prof. Plimpton:

>>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
>>> anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
>>> "nothing", *Goo*.
>
>>

>> you said you were "nothing" prior to existing and

No.


>
> Prof. Plimpton believes they're in a pre-existent "state", and

No, *YOU* believe that, *Goo*. You do because you have to believe it in
order for your nonsense bullshit to have any meaning to you:

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.
Goo/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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

*ALL* of those, *Goo*, are necessarily predicated on *YOUR* belief in
"pre-existence". And NONE of them is a "mistake" in vocabulary. They
all are what you believe, and they all point to your belief in
"pre-existence." Yes, indeed they do.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - keeps running away from this in a
white-knuckled panic. He is terrified and can't address it.

The simple and undeniable and unavoidable *FACT* is, "aras" are not
failing to give an appropriate ethical "consideration" to the merely
potential lives of "future farm animals" when they advocate for the
cessation of animal husbandry. Those merely potential lives have no
ethical value today. If those lives fail to occur, then they just fail
to occur, and there is no ethical meaning to it - there is nothing to
consider.

Fuckwit doesn't "consider" the lives, either - that's nothing but a
dishonest smokescreen. All he wants is the products - the
animal-derived products are the *only* things he considers.

[Mr.Smartypants]

Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.

[Dutch]

Mr.Smartypants wrote:

> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>

Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/7/2013 11:48 AM, Dutch wrote:
> Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>

>> you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>
>
> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.

Fuckwit never said he believes in it, but he *does* believe in it - he
has to in order to believe any of his other cracker bullshit about
existence, or "getting to experience life", being a benefit to animals.

[dh]

[George Plimpton]

I thought this was going to be the beginning of today's Fuckwit David
Harrison shit hemorrhage, but he didn't say anything (not that he ever
does.)

[Mr.Smartypants]

"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

[dh]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 10:04:21 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:11:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>

>>On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>

>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Apr 30, 3:11�pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> >On Apr 26, 8:20�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> >> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." �A being must exist in
>>>>>>> >> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>>>>>> >> out" on getting it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>> >> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>>>>>> >> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> >What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit, Goobs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> � � The stupid Goober still hasn't told us how he wants people to think he found
>>>>>>> out what non-existence is like in order to make his comparison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>>>>>>when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>>>
>>>>>>He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>>>>>>his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>>>condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>>>

>>>>> Goo insists that:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

>>>>>
>>>>>Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>>>>

>>>>Here's the passage:
>>>>
>>>> Mr Hamilton:

>>>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>>>

>>>> the Goober:

>>>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>>>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
>>>>"nothing", *Goo*.
>>
>>>

>>>Goo, you said you were "nothing" prior to existing
>
>No.

What do you want people to think you were prior to existing if not nothing,
Goo?

>>>and that you are no
>>>better off now (existing) than you were BEFORE (pre-existence)
>>>
>>>Now you claim, "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""
>>
>> Goo believes they're in a pre-existent "state", and apparently believes that
>>when an entity "moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know" the
>>experience of life is never better than his supposed pre-existent "state" "no
>>matter its quality of live" - Goo
>

>No

Then why did you say that it never is, Goo?

[dh]

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 10:11 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 5/7/2013 10:04 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 3:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile
>>> pointless heckler, lied:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, George Plimpton, *far* above
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way,

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>> stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>> 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton,
>>>>>> juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>> and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton,
>>>>>>>> juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, George Plimpton, *far* above Fuckwit David

>>>>>>>>> Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must
>>>>>>>>>> exist in
>>>>>>>>>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to
>>>>>>>>>> "miss
>>>>>>>>>> out" on getting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What if escaping pre-existence
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton, mentally above us in every way, still hasn't

>>>>>>>> told us how he wants people to think
>>

>> Because that's a nonsensical cracker construction, *Goo*. You need to
>> write in English.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>>>>>>> when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>>>>>>> his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>>>> condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton insists that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>> Plimpton

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>>

>> *YOU* know what it means, *Goo*:
>>
>> 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.
>> Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> "The animals that will be raised for us to eat" in future do not exist
>> now, *Goo*, but you believe they "...are more than just 'nothing'". So,
>> when you wrote "whatever the hell that's supposed to mean", as if you
>> didn't know what it meant, you were lying, *Goo* - again.
>>
>> You always lie, *Goo*, and I always catch you.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the passage:
>>>>>

>>>>> Douchebag Hamilton:

>>>>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>>>>

>>>>> Prof. Plimpton:

>>>>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>>>>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
>>>>> anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
>>>>> "nothing", *Goo*.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> you said you were "nothing" prior to existing and

>>
>> No.
>
> What do you want people to think you

Write in English, *Goo*.

> Then why did

Then why did you deny you believe in "pre-existence", *Goo*, when very
clearly and undeniably you *DO* believe in it?

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 10:11 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:48:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Pointless Douchebag blabbered:
>>
>>> you believe in pre-existence.

>>>
>>
>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state"

Which you do, *Goo* - QED

[Dutch]

You get dumber by the day.

[Mr.Smartypants]

On May 8, 8:10 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>
> >> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>
> > "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>
> You get dumber by the day.

Really? I didn't run off looking for pet food cows just because Goobs
was stupid enough to believe they actually existed......but you
did.......didn't you?

LOL!

[George Plimpton]

On 5/8/2013 7:10 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Stupid ankle-biting fuckstain blabbered pointlessly:

>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>>> Stupid ankle-biting fuckstain blabbered pointlessly:

>>>> , you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>>
>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""
>>
>

> You get dumber by the day.

He's a cinderblock - how could he possibly get any dumber?

[dh]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:10:08 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>>
>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>
>
>You get dumber by the day.

Try to explain what you want people to think the Goober thought he was
trying to talk about. Go:

[dh]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:21:33 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:11 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:48:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>

>>>Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.

>>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes

>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>
>Which you do

I don't have a belief whether there is one or not Goober. There may be, and
there may not be. I do believe that billions of beings benefit from their lives
REGARDLESS of whether or not there is any "state" of pre-existence though Goob.
That is something you can't comprehend you inept Googoots which necessarily
prevents you from being able to comprehend much less appreciate what I really do
believe. You can't comprehend what I believe unless you can learn to comprehend
that being alive is still to your advantage REGARDLESS OF anything to do with
any supposed pre-existent state, Goo.

[dh]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:20:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:11:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 May 2013 10:04:21 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:11:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> >On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit."  A being must exist in
>>>>>>>>> >> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to "miss
>>>>>>>>> >> out" on getting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>> >> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or being
>>>>>>>>> >> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> >What if escaping pre-existence is a benefit, Goobs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     The stupid Goober still hasn't told us how he wants people to think he found
>>>>>>>>> out what non-existence is like in order to make his comparison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before and
>>>>>>>>when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate observation on
>>>>>>>>his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>>>>>condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Goo insists that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>Here's the passage:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Hamilton:

>>>>>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>>>>>

>>>>>> the Goober:

>>>>>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>>>>>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm animals" are
>>>>>>"nothing", *Goo*.
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>Goo, you said you were "nothing" prior to existing
>>>
>>>No.
>>

>> What do you want people to think you were prior to existing if not nothing,
>>Goo?
>

>Wr

Once again you have proven you have no clue what you thought you were trying
to talk about, Goo.

>>>>>and that you are no
>>>>>better off now (existing) than you were BEFORE (pre-existence)
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you claim, "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing.""
>>>>
>>>> Goo believes they're in a pre-existent "state", and apparently believes that
>>>>when an entity "moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know" the
>>>>experience of life is never better than his supposed pre-existent "state" "no
>>>>matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then why did you say that it never is, Goo?
>

>Then why did you deny you believe in "pre-existence"

Because I don't have a belief about whether there is pre-existence or not,
you stupid Goober. Why do you want people to think life is never better than the
supposed pre-existence state "no matter its quality of live", Goo?

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 3:40 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 5/8/2013 10:20 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2013 10:04 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2013 3:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 3 May 2013 00:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton, juvenile
>>>>> pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 20:45:43 -0700, George Plimpton, *far* above
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way,

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:10 -0400, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>> stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>> 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton,
>>>>>>>> juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 3:11 pm, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>>> and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Douchebag Hamilton,
>>>>>>>>>> juvenile pointless heckler, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 8:20 pm, George Plimpton, *far* above Fuckwit David

>>>>>>>>>>> Harrison and The Douchebag in every conceivable way, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..."they" will not "miss out" on any "benefit." A being must
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist in
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to receive a benefit, and it must also exist in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>> "miss
>>>>>>>>>>>> out" on getting it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit; and never existing does not mean "missing out on" or
>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>> "denied" any benefits, either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What if escaping pre-existence
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton, mentally above us in every way, still hasn't

>>>>>>>>>> told us how he wants people to think
>>>>

>>>> Because that's a nonsensical cracker construction, *Goo*. You need to
>>>> write in English.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> He did mention once that he was no better off than he was before
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> when I asked him what he was before he replied, "nothing".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He knows he's nothing now and I'd say it's an accurate
>>>>>>>>> observation on
>>>>>>>>> his part but I'm thinking he's just guessing based on his present
>>>>>>>>> condition that he was nothing before too.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton insists that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>> Plimpton

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
>>>>

>>>> *YOU* know what it means, *Goo*:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>>>>
>>>> "The animals that will be raised for us to eat" in future do not exist
>>>> now, *Goo*, but you believe they "...are more than just 'nothing'". So,
>>>> when you wrote "whatever the hell that's supposed to mean", as if you
>>>> didn't know what it meant, you were lying, *Goo* - again.
>>>>
>>>> You always lie, *Goo*, and I always catch you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the passage:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Douchebag Hamilton:

>>>>>>> I asked what you were before you came into this existence and
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Prof. Plimpton:

>>>>>>> And I explained that I didn't exist. Not existing is not
>>>>>>> equivalent to "being nothing." An entity must exist to "be"
>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That refutes your bullshit about claiming the "unborn farm
>>>>>>> animals" are
>>>>>>> "nothing", *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> you said you were "nothing" prior to existing and

>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> What do you want people to think you
>>

> Because I don't have a belief about whether there is pre-existence or not,

That's a lie. You believe in it - proved.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/9/2013 3:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 5/8/2013 10:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 10:11 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:48:27 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Pointless Douchebag blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>> you believe in pre-existence.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> a pre-existent state"
>>

>> Which you do, *Goo* - QED
>

> I don't have a belief whether there is one or not

That's a lie. You believe there is, and all your cracker bullshit is
predicated on it.

[Dutch]

"pet food cows", "choice cuts", listen to yourself, what a stupid douchebag.

[Dutch]

Sure, do you know anyone with in I.Q. >75 that I could explain it to?

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
>>> >>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> >>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> >>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>> >
>> >Which you do
> I don't have a belief whether there is one or not

In order for coming into existence to be a benefit there must be.

[Mr.Smartypants]

There isn't *anything* as stupid as the shit you believe and write
about.
"The truth is, as Del tells you, that some livestock are
specifically intended for pet food." - Goo
"The animal was bred and raised to be pet food. That's
exactly what the AP story says." - Goo
"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo
_________________________________________________________
Feb 19 2006 Goo pasted:
>>LUBBOCK, Texas - The nation's first domestic case of
>>mad cow disease (search) has been traced to a
>>12-year-old Texas-born cow destined to become pet food
>>until the federal government's testing program kicked in.
Ron wrote:
> someone deliberately fed a cow for TWELVE years in order
> to turn her into pet food.
Goo wrote:

Exactly.
_________________________________________________________
Ron asked Goo:
>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.
_________________________________________________________
"shrubkiller" wrote:
>>And so here is stupid little Goober desperately trying to get us to
>>believe that someone deliberately fed a cow for TWELVE years in order
>>to turn her into pet food.

Goo replied:
Exactly. That's exactly what the AP story said.
"shrubkiller" wrote:
>>She was likely a range cow that was beyond her calf bearing years and
>>far too tough for sale at the supermarket meat section.

Goo replied:
No. It was an animal bred under contract for pet food.
_________________________________________________________
dh wrote:
> A contract to raise cattle for twelve years so they can be used as
> dog food. Hilarious!!! What a Goober!

Goo replied:
That's what the story says, Fuckwit.
And after it's all over and done with and Goo proves he believes cows
are
raised for 12 years only to become pet food he wants everyone to
forget
what he testified to.
"forget about anything I said *after* Hamilton's wrong inference."
> dh asked:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:52:17 -0600, Del <thislld...@forallofus.com> wrote:
> >>My experience is in the US and have seen to the delivery of hundreds of
> >>tons per month of beef parts to pet food processors. The knowledge of
> >>the destination of these particular products was anticipated and or
> >>known at the time the calves were concieved at the breeders ranch. This
> >>is contracted through brokerage and marketing firms just as any other
> >>commodity.
> > So are you confirming the belief that there are herds of cattle
> > raised simply to make dog food?
>Goo: Yes, Fuckwit - he is confirming that fact. You stupid,
> plodding, pig-fucking cracker.

Dave:Uh.....Goober..?.....here is Del's reply to that question:
"No, read above."
His answer is "NO" Goober. That means he isn't confirming.
That makes you "the stupid, plodding, pig-fucking cracker" for
twisting
things around to make them appear what you think they should mean.

[George Plimpton]

He knows he doesn't have a serious contribution to make.

[Dutch]

Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> There isn't*anything* as stupid as me

Goober Harrison is close.

[George Plimpton]

Despite his admittedly inferior intellect, Fuckwit *Goo* Harrison at
least is trying to say something serious. It's always some idiotic
cracker nonsense that would be better left unsaid, but he's trying. The
only thing Douchebag is trying to do is be a juvenile heckler.

[Mr.Smartypants]

How would you know, Goobs? You claim you don't read my posts.

[dh]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:48:38 -0700, Dutch wussed horribly and dishonestly:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:10:08 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>>>
>>>
>>> You get dumber by the day.
>>
>> Try to explain what you want people to think the Goober thought he was
>> trying to talk about. Go:
>>
>
>Sure

Go:

[dh]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:45:44 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>> On May 8, 8:10 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>>
>>>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>>
>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>>
>>> You get dumber by the day.
>>
>>
>> Really? I didn't run off looking for pet food cows just because Goobs
>> was stupid enough to believe they actually existed......but you
>> did.......didn't you?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
>"pet food cows", "choice cuts", li

What do you think the people did with the choice cuts from the non-example
you provided, don't you have any idea? Do you think they really did feed choice
cuts of prime beef to their dogs and cats?

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:6a33p81skelv5a40e...@4ax.com...

Do you know anyone with an I.Q. >75 that I could explain it to?

[Dutch]

<dh@.> wrote in message news:ca33p8pts7u41ahe7...@4ax.com...

I'm torn between I don't care and yes. Take your pick.

[dh]

You want to believe it and we both know it. I doubt they did if they farm
for a living though, and maybe even if they don't.

[dh]

You've proven that you couldn't even attempt to explain it to anyone, or
everyone, or anything, or even to yourself. You have no clue and you proved it.
I challenge you to try proving me wrong. You lose.

[Dutch]

Who cares?

[Dutch]

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:39:23 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message news:6a33p81skelv5a40e...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:48:38 -0700, Dutch wussed horribly and dishonestly:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:10:08 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 7, 12:48 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Goo, you believe in pre-existence. You KNOW you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody here has said they believe in pre-existence. You KNOW that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You get dumber by the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think the Goober thought he
>>>>> was
>>>>> trying to talk about. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure
>>>
>>> Go:
>>
>> Do you know anyone with an I.Q. >75 that I could explain it to?
>
> You've proven

You've proven that you're an idiot.

[dh]

It's just another way that what you presented was NOT an example of what Goo

[dh]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:09:16 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>> You've proven that you couldn't even attempt to explain it to anyone, or
>>everyone, or anything, or even to yourself. You have no clue and you proved it.
>>I challenge you to try proving me wrong. You lose.
>

>You've proven

YOU have proven me correct. That's not in dispute.