Prev: Jonathan Ball fulfils my predictions to the letter for my entertainment
Next: What they taught Ball in graduate school
From: Rupert on 3 Jul 2008 23:11
On Jul 3, 7:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 4:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> Dear Jonathan Ball,
> >>> Real men give straight answers to questions.
> >> Too bad you can't do it.
>
> > Here is another question for you to
>
> blow off because I don't entertain questions from passive, fruity boys.

1. That made me laugh out loud.
2. My girlfriend did not find me passive and fruity this morning.
3. What was that about "chickenshit"?

God help me, Ball. How did you become such a joke? What happened to
you? Were you born that way?
From: Rupert on 4 Jul 2008 00:56
On Jul 3, 8:33 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 7:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 3, 4:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan Ball,
> >>>>> Real men give straight answers to questions.
> >>>> Too bad you can't do it.
> >>> Here is another question for you to
> >> blow off because I don't entertain questions from passive, fruity boys..
>
> > 1. That made me laugh out loud.
>
> No.
>

You don't seriously believe that anyone could stop themselves from
roaring with laughter when reading your posts, do you?

> > 2. My girlfriend did not find me passive and fruity this morning.
>
> Your girlfriend is a little Chinese boy, and he gets on top.
>

Not last time I checked, no. Boys aren't really my thing, although I
don't really see why it matters one way or the other.

If you had the experience of making a woman cry out in ecstasy on a
regular basis, you wouldn't feel the need or inclination to call women
who are thousands of miles away "HIV-spreading whores", and you'd be a
little bit less of a public disgrace and laughingstock.

> > 3. What was that about "chickenshit"?
>
> Your middle name.

How do you figure? Be sure to snip the question below when you answer.

Is "axiomatisable" a real word?
From: Rupert on 4 Jul 2008 01:35
On Jul 3, 10:27 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 8:33 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 3, 7:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 3, 4:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Jonathan Ball,
> >>>>>>> Real men give straight answers to questions.
> >>>>>> Too bad you can't do it.
> >>>>> Here is another question for you to
> >>>> blow off because I don't entertain questions from passive, fruity boys.
> >>> 1. That made me laugh out loud.
> >> No.
>
> > You don't seriously believe that anyone could stop themselves from
> > roaring with laughter
>
> You aren't laughing.
>

Why do you think that?

> >>> 2. My girlfriend did not find me passive and fruity this morning.
> >> Your girlfriend is a little Chinese boy, and he gets on top.
>
> > Not last time I checked,
>
> Every time.
>
> >>> 3. What was that about "chickenshit"?
> >> Your middle name.
>
> > How do you figure?
>
> The little Chinese boy told me.

Should I talk about that with my doctor? Did you actually see him or
was he just a voice in your head?

From: dh on 10 Jul 2008 14:21
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, fat pig-fucker and moronic cracker - lied
>and presented no challenge:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Goo,
>>>>
>>>> When Pearl recently made a post in the thread "Is meat off the menu?",
>>>> you claimed that it contained an argument based purely on economic
>>>> inefficiency. This is not actually supported by the text.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. It is comparable to the other citations I made that you
>>> reference below.
>>
>> Quotes, Goo?
>
>Read the posts

"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." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"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." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Jonathan Ball fulfils my predictions to the letter for my entertainment
Next: What they taught Ball in graduate school