Goo has lost it completely.
dh
has now lost it completely. Goo can't explain anything, is in denial
about everything, and that's all there appears to be left of Goo
besides childish lies and insults.
Rupert
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
> cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than
> I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
> > [ignorant illiterate cracker bullshit spew]
>
> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
What's the point?
dh
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:49:08 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
LOL. Thanks for proving me correct AGAIN Goo. You have
lost it completely Goober, and "it" has always been piss poor
even in your "best" times.
dh
>On Sep 22, 8:29 am, the Goober claimed:
>
>>dh pointed out that Goo has lost it completely:
. . .
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>
>What's the point?
The reason for Goo making the claim again gets
back to his maniacal opposition to people taking the
animals' lives into consideration when considering
the animals. Everything gets back to that. As he has
clearly displayed in your case recently this Goober
and the other(?) Goos are maniacally opposed to
people supporting lives of positive value over elimination,
and this desperate stupidity is just a part of that.
When we examine the stupidity itself it's clear that
Goo is convinced something to do with our pre-existent
selves is somehow preventing us from benefitting from
our own existence:
"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo
"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo
As he has clearly shown the Goober believes something
to do with our pre-existent selves:
"there *was* no person"
is somehow causing a very significant prevention to the
value of life it appears he's claiming for every being in
the whole universe:
"Life is not a gain because"
Goo doesn't have the slightest clue about exactly HOW
he thinks they're imposing the prevention, but he's is
insanely obsessed with encouraging people to have
faith that they are:
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo
"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - 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
"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo
"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". . . They don't because they can't
conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo
dh
>Rupert wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 8:29 am, the Goober claimed without being able to back it up:
>>> dh pointed out that Goo has lost it completely:
. . .
>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>>
>> What's the point?
>
>Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
LOL! That really is amusing coming from you Goo, since you have
proven to no clue what you think you're trying to talk about yourself.
Why not try explaining to Rupert HOW you think whatever you think
it is (ALL evidence points to your obsession with pre-existence), is
preventing beings from benefitting from the lives of positive value that
they clearly *appear to be* benefitting from? Try explaining it now Goo.
Go:
(Note: the reason the Goober will fail to meet the challenge is because
his incredible ineptitude prevents him from being able to do so.)
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, 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 Sep 22, 8:29 am, Rudy L. Canoza slapped the fuck out of GooFuckwit Harrison again:
>
> >>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
>
> > . . .
> >>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
> >> What's the point?
>
>
> Not a "claim", Goo - a fact. It is a *FACT*, Goo, that coming into
> existence - "getting to experience life", in your *SHIT* terminology -
> is not a benefit to farm animals.
Prove it, Boobs.
Mr.Smartypants
LOL!!
You have *NO* clue what point you're trying to make.
dh
>On Sep 22, 12:28 pm, Goo again make the apparantly idiotic claim which is
>so completely stupid that even the Goober himself can't attempt to support it:
>
>> It is a *FACT*, Goo, that coming into
>> existence - "getting to experience life", in your *SHIT* terminology -
>> is not a benefit to farm animals.
>
>
>
>Prove it, Boobs.
The only thing the Goober can prove is that he's too inept to
even attempt the challenge...too inept and too cowardly, the
cowardice being a bi-product of his ineptitude. We know for
certain that Goo believes our own pre-existent "selves" are
somehow preventing us from benefitting from life now:
"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person" - Goo
but none of us--including the Goober-- know HOW he thinks
they're doing it! We only know for certain that Goob is certain
that "they" are somehow preventing us all from benefitting...
every being ever born, anywhere...
Goober, try to stop being a cowardly wuss and attempt to
meet Mr. Smartypants' challenge. Try to give evidence that
you have any sliver of a clue what it is you think you're trying
to talk about Goo. GO:
(Note: The Goober has been challenged directly by Rupert,
Mr Smartypants and myself to give evidence that he has
some clue what he thinks he's trying to talk about, and as
yet has been able to present no evidence at all. None.)
dh
>On Sep 22, Goo tried to cowardly slink away from one of his absurd claims:
>> Rupert challenged the Goober on his absurd claim:
>> > On Sep 22, 8:29 am, Goo again made a claim he can't back up:
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>>
>> > What's the point?
>>
>> Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
>
>
>LOL!!
>
>You have *NO* clue what point you're trying to make.
That's for sure, and is proven by his inability to even try
to explain what he thinks he thinks he's trying to talk about.
Goo really REALLY does suck at this.
dh
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:18:19 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 Goo amusingly wrote:
>>
>>>Rupert challenged Clueless to explain:
>>
>>>> On Sep 22, Goo claimed without being able to back it up:
>>
>>>>> dh pointed out that Goo has lost it completely:
>>. . .
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> What's the point?
>>>
>>>Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
>>
>> LOL! That really is amusing coming from you Goo, since you have
>>proven to no clue what you think you're trying to talk about yourself.
>
>No it isn't - it's devastating to you.
LOL!!! All you've done is to prove me correct by outstupiding yourself
again Goober. LOL...how do you think displaying what a completely
inept, clueless, stupid fool you are is devastating to anyone else? We
know it's hilarious Goo, but how do you think it's devastating to anyone
other than yourself? Do you have any clue about that, Goober?
dh
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:18:05 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 Clueless Goo made the absurd claim:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:18:19 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 Goo amusingly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rupert challenged Clueless to explain:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 22, Goo claimed without being able to back it up:
>>>>
>>>>>>> dh pointed out that Goo has lost it completely:
>>>>. . .
>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the point?
>>>>>
>>>>>Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! That really is amusing coming from you Goo, since you have
>>>>proven to no clue what you think you're trying to talk about yourself.
>>>
>>>No it isn't - it's devastating to you.
>>
>> LOL!!! All you've done is to prove me correct by outstupiding yourself
>>again Goober. LOL...how do you think displaying what a completely
>>inept, clueless, stupid fool you are is devastating to anyone else? We
>>know it's hilarious Goo, but how do you think it's devastating to anyone
>>other than yourself? Do you have any clue about that, Goober?
>
>I'm an idiot!!!
You've demonstrated that many times Goo, as you're demonstrating
it again now. The question is: How do you think displaying what an
idiot you are is devastating to anyone other than yourself, Goob?
>...prove that you're an idiot.
LOL!!! So you think that if you display your own stupidity frequently
and consistently enough, you'll get other people to do the same thing
...LOL...what a Goober you are Goo!
>>>>Why not try explaining to Rupert HOW you think whatever you think
>>>>it is (ALL evidence points to your obsession with pre-existence), is
>>>>preventing beings from benefitting from the lives of positive value that
>>>>they clearly *appear to be* benefitting from? Try explaining it now Goo.
>>>>Go:
>>>>
>>>>(Note: the reason the Goober will fail to meet the challenge is because
>>>>his incredible ineptitude prevents him from being able to do so.)
Hmmm...maybe that explains why he keeps outstupiding himself
time after time after time...
dh
away from Mr Smartypants' challenge AGAIN:
>Proved, many times.
Every time you're challenged you give the clear impression
that you don't have the slightest clue what you think you're
trying to talk about Goober, since you can't even attempt to
try explaining what you think it is. But Goob some of us keep
hoping that you will eventually try to explain what you're trying
to think about, since if you ever do chances are excellent that
it will be hilarious. Try doing it now Goo. Try to explain what
you think prevents living beings from benefitting from lives of
positive value. What *ever* you think it is it's okay Goob, just
say exactly what you think it is, and how you think it's doing so.
Go:
Go Goo...it is time...go now:
Go on Goo, do it:
GO!:
NOW Goo GO!!!:
TRY! TO EXPLAIN FOR ONCE YOU STUPID GOOBER! GO!!!:
You sure do suck at this. You have a claim but no clue, Goo.
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
> cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than
> I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, 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 Sep 22, 12:28 pm, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>> It is a *FACT*, Goo, that coming into
> >>>>> existence - "getting to experience life", in your *SHIT* terminology -
> >>>>> is not a benefit to farm animals.
>
> >>> The only thing the Goober can prove
>
> > Every time you're challenged
>
> me, Goo. Never.-
LOL!!!
He posted 19 challenges for you to deal with and you ran away, Boobs.
Too funny.;o)
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
What I meant was: what is the point of having this utterly tedious non-
conversation again again, year after year...
dh
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:04:11 -0100, dh@. challenged Goo:
>
>> Every time you're challenged you give the clear impression
>>that you don't have the slightest clue what you think you're
>>trying to talk about Goober, since you can't even attempt to
>>try explaining what you think it is. But Goob some of us keep
>>hoping that you will eventually try to explain what you're trying
>>to think about, since if you ever do chances are excellent that
>>it will be hilarious. Try doing it now Goo. Try to explain what
>>you think prevents living beings from benefitting from lives of
>>positive value. What *ever* you think it is it's okay Goob, just
>>say exactly what you think it is, and how you think it's doing so.
>>Go:
>>
>>Go Goo...it is time...go now:
>>
>>Go on Goo, do it:
>>
>>GO!:
>>
>>NOW Goo GO!!!:
>>
>>TRY! TO EXPLAIN FOR ONCE YOU STUPID GOOBER! GO!!!:
>
>No challenge
LOL!!! We can clearly see that your crying, lying and denying
the challenge for you to explain your claim without a clue can
not do anything to make you any less of a complete failure
Goo. You are a complete failure, and then you lie about it.
dh
>On Sep 22, 3:23 pm, Goo wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Sep 22, 8:29 am, Goo wrote:
>> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
>> >> cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than
>> >> I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>
>> >>> [ignorant illiterate cracker bullshit spew]
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.
>>
>> > What's the point?
>>
>> Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
>
>What I meant was: what is the point of having this utterly tedious non-
>conversation again again, year after year...
It's the only way he has of trying to defend the misnomer from the
fact that many livestock have decent lives of positive value. It is
very impressive that the Goober has stooped to such a desperate
level. In his desperation Goo has sunk to insisting that his pre-existent
self is preventing the Goo in "the life we can detect" from benefitting
from his own existence. Exactly how the Goober thinks "He" is
preventing himself from benefitting he has never been able to say,
but he has made it extremely clear he believes that "He" is somehow
managing to do so. You can test it yourself and see simply by challenging
Goo to try explaining what he thinks prevents his own benefit without
referring to "Him". The Goober will fail that challenge every time, both
when he denies its existence and also on the rare occasions he dishonestly
claims to have met and conquered it.
dh
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:00:11 -0200, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 22, 3:23 pm, the inept Goober cowardly wussed:
>>>
>>>> Rupert challenged an inept Goober to try to explain:
>>>>
>>>> > What's the point?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it a little longer, rupie - you can probably get it on your own.
>>>
>>>What I meant was: what is the point of having this utterly tedious non-
>>>conversation again again, year after year...
>>
>> It's the only way he has of trying to defend the misnomer from the
>>fact that many livestock have decent lives of positive value. It is
>>very impressive that the Goober has stooped to such a desperate
>>level. In his desperation Goo has sunk to insisting that his pre-existent
>>self is preventing the Goo in "the life we can detect" from benefitting
>>from his own existence. Exactly how the Goober thinks "He" is
>>preventing himself from benefitting he has never been able to say,
>>but he has made it extremely clear he believes that "He" is somehow
>>managing to do so. You can test it yourself and see simply by challenging
>>Goo to try explaining what he thinks prevents his own benefit without
>>referring to "Him". The Goober will fail that challenge every time, both
>>when he denies its existence and also on the rare occasions he dishonestly
>>claims to have met and conquered it.
>
>No
Then try to conquer it Goober. I'm sure anyone reading would
like to see you try, so TRY Goo. GO!:
(Correct prediction: The Goober can do nothing but lie.)