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

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>Why did you go to such lengths to pretend this wasn't 
>you Derek? Did you think you could fool anyone?
>
"I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if 
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader 
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in 
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than 
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself."
Ipse dixit 2003-11-9

I might be Derek, but there again I might not be.
One thing for sure is that the last laugh is always 
on those who cannot support their claims of who 
I am with any supporting evidence. Even the nym,
by definition is an unsupported assertion, so I'll
always have that last laugh, whoever I am.

>> History shows that Dutch has always been keen
>> to use Jonathan's argument against Harrison in
>> an effort to show that Harrison is an ARA or just
>> completely stupid.
>
>False, I have always used my own arguments. 

I haven't seen one argument from you against
Harrison that is any different from Jon's. You
snipe at Harrison from behind Jon's skirt, using
his arguments, but with a few changes to the 
paragraphs he uses with the help of your handy
thesaurus.

>Ironically, your subject line is a statement by 
>Jonathan.

No, it isn't. Check it again.

> hmmmm
>
I don't know that one. Is it the lead-in to Simon 
& Garfunkle's "America"?

>> By this effort I mean that
>> Dutch takes parts of Jon's paragraphs and then
>> replaces a few of his words for a handful he
>> finds in a thesaurus to sound erudite.
>
>Oh my the "you just mimic Jonathan shot". I'm 
>shattered. Except that I'm disagreeing with him 
>now, how does that work?
>
You're forced into disagreeing with him in this
instance to save your embarrassment in being 
found to be in agreement with Harrison after
all this time. That's why.

>> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
>> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
>> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
>> Dutch argues exactly the same.
>>
>> "That's because nobody "benefits from life",
>> you dickwad. You LIVE life, you appreciate
>> life, but you don't "benefit from" it. Life
>> is not a benefit, it's a prerequisite to
>> receiving a benefit."
>> Dutch Date: 2002-12-06
>>
>> But, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
>> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
>> animals do benefit from life and our moral
>> consideration in removing their predators, first
>> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
>
>No, deer benefit from having predotors removed. 

And this benefit is a benefit, "first because they
are able to reproduce prodigiously", according
to you, so explain how an animal benefits from 
reproducing, Dutch. After that, seeing as we
benefit from it as well, how is this not a very
real moral imperative for us to ensure we all
continue receiving it?
>
>> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
>> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
>> and second because being shot is a bound to be
>> less painful than being brought down by wolves
>> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
>> breathing.."
>> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
>>
>> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
>> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>
>Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek? 

He made a valid observation, but fortunately 
for you he has decided to back off and let you 
get away with claiming animals benefit from 
living and reproducing, so I've decided to find
out why Jon accepts your argument and not
Harrison's. Buckle up; it's going to be a long
and bumpy ride.
>
>> Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
>> for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
>> has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
>> he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
>> argument.
>>
>> [Dutch]
>> > > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
>> [ipse dixit]
>> > No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
>> > go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>> [Dutch]
>> Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
>> arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
>> too close to fuckwit's argument.
>> Dutch  Date: 2003-11-22
>
>First you mock me because you claim I mimic 
>Jonathan's arguments, now you're attacking me 
>because I disagree with him.
>
I'm attacking you for lying about your beliefs
and your hypocritical attacks on Harrison for
holding those same beliefs himself. It's clear
now that you both believe animals benefit from
life and being able to reproduce, yet up until
Jon revealed "you made Fuckwit's argument 
for him" you attacked him with statements
such as;
   "That's because nobody "benefits from life",
     you dickwad. You LIVE life, you appreciate
     life, but you don't "benefit from" it. Life
     is not a benefit, it's a prerequisite to
     receiving a benefit."
     Dutch Date: 2002-12-06

If nobody benefits from life, as you claimed 
then, why are you now claiming they can?

>Seems I can't win..
>
It's a fact that you won't.

>> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
>> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
>> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
>> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
>> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
>> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
>> "Of course they do."
>
>Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from 
>control of predators?
>
I don't give it any moral consideration at all.
Look, for once in your miserable life try to
understand the error I'm showing you. If you 
believe animals benefit from our removal of 
their predators, then you are using a moral 
consideration when viewing their suffering 
and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
control is a good thing. That's going to get you 
into all sorts of trouble when asked what that
moral consideration consists of, where it comes
from, and whether it is in fact the very moral 
imperative Harrison has been looking for. Way 
to go ...

>> [start ipse dixit]
>> >> As expected, and just like Harrison, you are now
>> >> equivocating between who benefits from allowing
>> >> animals to live ("getting  to experience life") and
>> >> reproduce. It's clear from your initial statement that
>> >> you believe the animals themselves benefit ("The
>> >> deer benefit from the loss of predation")
>> [Dutch]
>> >Of course they do
>> [ipse dixit]
>> Way to go ....
>> [end]
>> Date 2003-11-25
>>
>> He believes, as Harrison does, that animals do
>> benefit from experiencing life and being able to
>> reproduce, even individually.
>>
>> "The deer are not subjected to constant predatory
>> pressure, that's a benefit to them *individually*, as
>> herds and as a wild species." *my emphasis*
>> Dutch  Date: 2003-11-21
>>
>> I think Dutch owes Harrison an apology.
>
>Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. 

For you, this should mean nothing, even if 
it were proved true. You are giving moral 
consideration to a perceived benefit and 
concluding it is good for the animals and
for us to receive this benefit. If it benefits
us as well as the animals, then you've found
Harrison's Holy Grail, haven't you?

>If ARAs were successful in immediately ending all 
>meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
>existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they 
>would get to livelonger, probably under improved 
>conditions. 

No, Dutch. When ARAs finally abolish the 
livestock industry we will cause their extinction, 
according to Harrison. To him, vegans are the 
ultimate predator upon them, and he argues, as 
you do, that there is a moral imperative to remove 
that threat so they can get to experience life and
reproduce. You ought to drop this or email Jon to 
help you find your way out of it.