Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: *One* ethical fact: GooFuckwit David Harrison fabricates ps |
 |
|
Goo - Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison - never accurately quotes anyone.
If Goo claims to be quoting anyone, you know with complete certainty the
person didn't write it as GooFuckwit has reproduced it. Goo always
mangles it deliberately to make the person appear to say something
completely different from what he actually wrote. Fuckwit David
"Bumper" Harrison is always lying when he claims to be quoting someone.
Here are four instances in which Goo mangled what I wrote in order to
try to make it appear I believe the opposite of what I actually wrote.
His effort is slovenly, amateurish and about what you'd expect from a
high school dropout cracker. Goo Fuckwit David "Bumper" Harrison is a
high school dropout.
Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"
What I actually wrote (in response to Fuckwit):
Fuckwit:
Why not provide them with decent lives and then
stop worrying about quitting raising them?
Rudy:
Because that's a BOGUS choice, Fuckwit. IF one
believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is
greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive
from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude
that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice.
Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
"'giving them life' does NOT mitigate the wrongness
of their deaths"
What I actually wrote:
Rudy:
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.
Fuckwit:
But it's not wrong to kill them for food
Rudy:
I don't feel it's wrong, but some people do feel it's
wrong, and you have given them no reason to discard
their belief.
Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
...is no mitigation at all for killing them."
What I actually wrote:
Fuckwit subscribes to a bankrupt, illogical pseudo-philosophy
called The (Il)Logic of the Larder. According to
that bit of fuckwittery, people who consume animals
justify the harm they inflict on the animals by
believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow
mitigates the harm. It's a futile, fuckwitted
attempt to counter the equally fuckwitted, bankrupt
philosophy of "veganism". It doesn't work. Causing
animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in
Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all
for killing them.
Fuckwit's mangled fabrication of what I wrote:
the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to
kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater
in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all
What I actually wrote:
If you are an "animal rights activist", and you
believe that the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral
harm greater in magnitude than either the potential
moral "loss" that results from not raising the
animal in the first place, or the moral "benefit"
realized by the animal in existing at all, then you
MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise
the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them.
Fuckwit - David "Bumper" Harrison, catfish-fucker and child-abuser -
does not quote people. Fuckwit mangles things they write and lies and
tries to pass them off as quotes. They are not quotes. |
|
