FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed)

Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs.  He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing.  His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

       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


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

       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

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

       *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
       it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
       Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

       All of that has nothing to do with how many
       actually get to live. But that is why I feel
       that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
       in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
       since the odds are infinite against all of us
       that *we* will actually get to experience life.
       Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

       Then I guess raising billions of animals for
       food provides billions of beings with a place in
       eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
       some of it.
       Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

       But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
       for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
       for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
       more so, since we provide life for most of the
       animals we kill.
       Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

       Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
       Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him.  Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

       As for whether or not providing them with life
       is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
       no one has ever had a problem with it.
       Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

       People who encourage vegetarianism are the
       worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
       have IMO.
       Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

       You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
       future farm animals [of] living,
       Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

       That approach is illogical, since if it
       is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
       *far worse* to keep those same animals from
       getting to have any life at all.
       Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
       [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

       But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
       discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
       with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
       about their lives is what matters, and in order
       to get some idea of what that is, we have to
       ignore the things that we know, and that they
       do not (like the fact that they will be
       killed). If a person is not willing to try to
       do that, then they really don't care about the
       animals, but are worried more about their self.
       Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying.  It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

       Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
       well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
       [kittens]. At least one of  them feels that for
       every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
       a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
       ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
       one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
       about things. Even if it were that way, there
       is really no reason for me to encourage life
       for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
       of kittens that could get to experience life
       from a cat that I actually care about, and
       kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
       least for a little while.
       Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them.  But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them.  He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life.  And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs.  Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.