Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
implied by what he has written:

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.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, Rudy Canoza thedismalscience.net> wrote:

Goo it was you who introduced the idea of pre-existence. Now you
disagree with yourself and can't understand why nor can you explain
why to the rest of us.

Since you can't explain any of it, you thought the best thing to do
would be to hang the "pre-existence" thing on Dave.

Watching you grunting and straining and giving yourself a hernia while
trying to move the goalposts is hilarious Goo.

You are one funny bunny.

I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied:

No. It was GooFuckwit.

On Aug 31, 12:54 pm, Rudy Canoza thedismalscience.net> wrote:

You are a LIAR Goo.

shrubkiller wrote:

Pre-existence was introduced by the author Henry Salt. He correctly says
that the notion must be considered when analyzing "The Logic of the
Larder", because the LoL implies it. If, as we all claim to believe,
that the idea of pre-existence is nonsense, then it becomes a problem to
determine for whom life itself is a benefit.

I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied:

On Aug 31, 1:38 pm, Dutch email.com> wrote:

On Aug 31, 1:56 pm, Rudy Canoza thedismalscience.net> wrote:

Dutch wrote:

I corrected your nym for you, ronnnnnnie

lying fuck scum lied: