****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >****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" . . .
> > ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> I'm revising it:

No, you're not.

>
> The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
> exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as David Harrison
> suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
> Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
> their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
> from having life they otherwise would have had.

That's nonsensical, ****wit. Your "whatever stops..." cannot logically
follow your "whether or not". If the animals DON'T exist, then you
cannot prevent "them" from "having" anything.

You, of course, believe they DO exist; that's why you keep writing
about preventing "them" from doing this and that. To you, ****WIT,
unconceived animals have a very real existence. You are an idiot for
thinking that, but there is zero doubt that you think it, and EVERY
shitty thing you've said over five and a half years of time wastage in
usenet is predicated on that belief. You'll never escape it, ****wit.