A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dogs - general
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 31st 05, 02:21 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.
  #6  
Old February 1st 05, 11:25 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,

wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Like what?

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.


You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit


It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.


No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
itself a benefit.

even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit".


No, I never have.


Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
you don't understand.

No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.


You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
understand it.

Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend.

__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...texts_web1828=
=3Dbenefit

=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
Life is the advantage=3Dbenefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals.


No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
compared to never existing. You can't, your whole rant is childish
bullshit.


You must be either another, or the same moron.

Quit talking to yourself.



Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?


You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro", see if
you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,
so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
that?

  #7  
Old February 1st 05, 11:35 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You've really never paid attention to anything, have you Ray?

  #8  
Old February 2nd 05, 12:20 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Feb 2005 14:25:46 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800,
wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,

wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Like what?

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.

You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit


It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.


No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
itself a benefit.

even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit".


No, I never have.


Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
you don't understand.

No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.


You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
understand it.


LOL!

Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend.

__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...eb1828=benefit

ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Life is the advantage=benefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals.


No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
compared to never existing.


Wrong. I only need point out that life is the advantage which
allows zygotes to grow into animals.

You can't, your whole rant is childish
bullshit.


You must be either another, or the same moron.

Quit talking to yourself.



Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?


You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro",


LOL! I mean: ooh, aren't you the special little fruit.

see if
you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,


Yes, he said you are Brandumbass. That certainly doesn't mean
you're not the Gonad too though, 'dumbass.

so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
that?


I've pointed out several times that if the unborn animals are not born,
they will die and so will their mothers. But you're too stupid to understand
even that much Brandumb.
  #9  
Old February 2nd 05, 06:03 AM
Rudy Canoza
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:


Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality



Like what?


You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

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.
****wit - 12/09/1999


You STUPID, STUPID redneck.
  #10  
Old February 2nd 05, 07:53 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For the 8,963rd time the sister-****ing uneducated cracker refuses to
support his dimwitted beliefs. Why can't you support your claims Jethro?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! Animalsrus1 Dog rescue 0 August 18th 03 03:26 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! Animalsrus1 Dog breeds 0 August 18th 03 03:23 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! Animalsrus1 Dog behavior 0 August 18th 03 03:22 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! Animalsrus1 Dog rescue 0 August 4th 03 04:52 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! Animalsrus1 Dog health 0 July 30th 03 05:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright İ2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.