Re: "Him"
dh
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:37:16 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 the Goober wrote:
>>
>>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>>> animals are completely different things and not
>>> necessarily a benefit for every animal, depending
>>> on the particular things that the experience.
>>> Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 22, 2005
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5p2hz3
>>>
>>>
>>>Existence is not a benefit at all. A benefit is defined as something
>>>that improves the beneficiary's welfare. There is no such thing as a
>>>"necessary" benefit.
>>>
>>>Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare to be
>>>improved. Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not
>>>a benefit, by definition: coming into existence does not /improve/
>>>anything for the entity.
>>
>> Goober that doesn't mean anything unless you can explain
>>how you think your pre-existent self is preventing you from
>>benefitting from your own life. HOW do you think "He" is doing
>>it, Goo? HOOOOOOOW???
>>
>> You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
>>to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>referring back to "Him".
>
>No
Then try doing it Goo. Try explaining why you think you
don't benefit from your own life without referring to "Him".
Go:
(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)
>>You have an identity disorder Goob.
>>Let's help you try to get some sort of grip on your "selves":
>>
>>"Him" - Prior to existing,
>>
>>"Him" - there was no entity,
>>
>>"His" - and thus no welfare to be improved.
>>
>>Goo - Coming into existence
>>
>>Goo - "getting to experience life"
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - is not a benefit,
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - by definition:
>>
>>Goo - coming into existence
>>
>>Goo/"Him"¿? - does not /improve/ anything for the entity.
>>
>>Notice that you're thinking of your "selves" as at least
>>three different "yous" Goo: You, "Him", and there's
>>the blending of "both" of you Goober where it's not
>>clear whether you really believe that you don't benefit
>>from your own life, or you believe "He" is somehow
>>still part of you or something, preventing you from
>>benefitting from your own existence. You must think
>>"He" resides within your own stupid ass Goo, because
>>where else would you imagine "Him" doing it. So that
>>much is clear enough Goob, because that's the only
>>way it could be.
>
>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.
Only because you believe their pre-existent selves are
preventing it. Try explaining why you think livestock don't
benefit from their lives without referring to "Them"--their
pre-existent "selves". Go:
(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)
>>But that one question lingers...the big
>>one...how? Without the how, you don't provide anything
>>to even consider, Goo. Like a dog without a bone, or
>>even a fun boner.
dh
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo claimed:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>> You don't have any idea Goo. A person can't even get you
>>>>to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>>>referring back to "Him".
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then try doing it Goo. Try explaining why you think you
>>don't benefit from your own life without referring to "Him".
>>Go:
>
>No one "benefits" from coming into existence
That's simply a claim without a clue, Goo.
>, Goo. I have explained this to you hundreds of times.
In contrast to that lie: You can't even make an attempt, as
you prove every time you're challenged to make one.
dh
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:07:16 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 Goo claimed:
>>
>>>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock
>>
>> Only because you believe their pre-existent selves are
>>preventing it. Try explaining why you think livestock don't
>>benefit from their lives without referring to "Them"--their
>>pre-existent "selves". Go:
>>
>>(Correct prediction: The Goober can't even make an attempt.)
>>
>>>>But that one question lingers...the big
>>>>one...how? Without the how, you don't provide anything
>>>>to even consider, Goo.
>
>Nothing to try
LOL!!! After all these years of making your clueless claim
you finally see that you have nothing and never did, Goo.
I'd say it's about time, but it's way PAST time that even an
idiot like yourself finally managed to figure it out.
dh
>No "Him"
Try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting from your life
without referring to "Him" Goo. Go:
dh
>No reference to "Him" or "He"
Try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting from living
without referring to "Him" you lame Goober. Go:
lostfrogg
"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:QMSdnR1QNIbosHTV...@earthlink.com...
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
> cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
> *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> No "Him", Goo. I never said it, made reference to it; nothing at all.
>>> You lied again, Goo. Liars lose.
>>
>> Try explaining
>
> No "Him", Goo. You fabricated that.
Ron Hamilton
> This thread is insane.
You're a fuckwit.
dh
>This thread is insane.
Goo's claim is what's insane:
"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo
and his inability to even attempt trying to defend
the insanity without referring to our pre-existent
"selves" is even more so.
>Goo wrote:
>
>dh challenged Goo:
>>
>>>Goo lied in desperate and still amusing denial:
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:37:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza<pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:37:16 -0200, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist - bullshitted:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>>>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>>>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>>>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>>>> animals are completely different things and not
>>>> necessarily a benefit for every animal, depending
>>>> on the particular things that the experience.
>>>> Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 22, 2005
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5p2hz3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Existence is not a benefit at all. A benefit is defined as something
>>>> that improves the beneficiary's welfare. There is no such thing as a
>>>> "necessary" benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare to be
>>>> improved. Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not
>>>> a benefit, by definition: coming into existence does not /improve/
>>>> anything for the entity.
>>>
>>> You don't have any idea Rudy. A person can't even get you
>>> to explain what you think you're trying to talk about without
>>> referring back to "Him".
>>
>> No, Goo. No "referring back", Goo - not once. "Him" is your ignorant Southern Baptist credulous believer fabrication, Goo. All yours, Goo.
>
> Then try doing it.
Try doing what, Goo? Refraining from referring to any "him"? Ha ha ha
ha ha! You stupid pig-fucking cracker: *you* are the only one who ever
referred to "him", you stupid cracker.
>>
>> Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, Goo. Can't be.
>
> Only because you believe their pre-existent selves
No, Goo - I don't believe in any "pre-existent selves", Goo. That one
is all yours, Goo. *YOU* believe in pre-existence, Goo - you have to
believe in it.