Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

Rubystars wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:28 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
>
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >   See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
> > > > > about it a little farther:
> > > >
> > > > Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
> > > >
> > > > -Rubystars
> > >
> > >
> > >    Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the issue.
> >
> > Please share a well-founded, thought out belief in the
> > first place, Fuckwit.
>
>
> I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that doesn't
> exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.

One way or another, Fuckwit thinks that those who would 
work to ensure that non-existent but *intended* beings 
remain non-existent - that is, those who would thwart 
someone else's intent - are doing great evil. 
Interestingly in Fuckwit's weird, irrational world, 
though, the great evil is not done to those whose 
intention is thwarted, but rather is done to the beings 
who won't be brought into existence.