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

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >
>> 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.
>
>Yea, you can laugh all you like

I do.

>> 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.
>
>All horseshit, from the biggest shit-shoveler ever.
>
You've never even attempted an argument 
of your own against him. You wait for Jon 
to come up with something and then copy it.

>> >Ironically, your subject line is a statement by
>> >Jonathan.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Check it again.
>
>What, is there a difference in punctuation? Fuckhead.
>
More than that. Check it again.

>> >> 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",
>
>Freedom of reproduction is just one of the benefits 
>deer accrue from reduced predation.
>
How do they benefit?

>> according to you, so explain how an animal benefits 
>> from reproducing, Dutch.
>
>That's a stupid question.
>
It's a valid question that you and Harrison will
always fail to answer.

>> 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?
>
>Many people consider it one.
>
Way to go ...

>> >> "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,
>
>No, it's one of the rare times that he didn't

Then, since he has made an invalid observation
we can safely assume he's made many more as
well. Harrison will be pleased.

>> 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.
>
>ROTFL! Not from you. 

Absolutely, from me.

> Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing 
>
Then explain how they benefit;
1) from living
2) from producing

>*without constant fear of attacks from predators*.
>The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit,

You've just wrote exactly the same thing; "Animals
DO benefit from living..."

>and that therefore
>never having a chance to be born is a loss.
>
Seeing as you both believe animals benefit
from living and reproducing, then not living
and producing must necessarily mean a loss.
Your argument is exactly the same as his.

>> >> 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.
>
>But I don't.
>
You do. You've already admitted that animals 
benefit from living and producing, so attacking
Harrison for holding those same beliefs is
hypocritical of you.

>> 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?
>
>They benefit from having predators removed, 
>that's what my initial statement to Rubystars was, 
>and what I am still saying.
>
That's a lie. You wrote that, "The deer benefit 
from the loss of predators, *first* because they 
are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
benefits you're referring to are;
1) from living
2) from producing
after we have removed their predators, so explain 
how.

You also wrote that the deer benefit *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

Explain how.

>> >> 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.
>
>That's not what I asked. Why don't you answer the question?
>
>Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from control of predators?
>
>Failure to answer will reveal that you are afraid of something.
>
I'll let you answer it for me, but seeing as you believe 
wildlife benefits from the elimination of their predators,
why did you lie to "JethroUK©" by telling him the exact
opposite, that wildlife benefits from predation?
"wildlife populations frequently benefit from predation."
Dutch  Date: 2003-06-30

I, personally, 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.
>
>I can't, there is no error on my part.
>
>> If you believe animals benefit from our removal 
>> of their predators,
>
>Which is obvious...
>
No, it isn't. You've yet to show how they benefit.

>> then you are using a moral
>> consideration when viewing their suffering
>> and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
>> control is a good thing.
>
>I said that predator control is beneficial to deer.

You've also wrote that, "wildlife populations 
frequently benefit from predation." as well,
so how do I know when you're telling the 
truth?

>> 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 ...
>
>Now you're really starting to sound like fuckwit.
>
Stop dodging and answer the questions.
1) what does this moral consideration consist of?
2) where does it come from?
3) isn't this moral consideration same moral
    imperative Harrison has been looking for?

>> >> [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.
>
>I never said it meant anything to me, I am simply stating a fact.
>
And who sounds like Harrison?

>> You are giving moral
>> consideration to a perceived benefit and
>> concluding it is good for the animals and
>> for us to receive this benefit.
>
>I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue. 

I know you have, stupid, and I'm telling you that 
that is exactly as Harrison sees it as well, so why 
don't you explain it in your own terms for us? 
Why, after all this time are you now agreeing with
Harrison in that "this is a moral consideration issue"?
>
>> If it benefits
>> us as well as the animals, then you've found
>> Harrison's Holy Grail, haven't you?
>
>This has nothing to do with him. 

Of course it does. Your moral consideration to
this perceived benefit tells you the removal of
predators is a good thing for the deer and for 
us. That being so, according to you, there is
a moral imperative to remove them: Harrison's
Holy Grail.

>His holy grail is convincing us that being
>born is a benefit that we bestow upon 
>livestock, and conversely withhold by
>being a vegetarian. 

His Holy Grail is THE moral imperative which
obligates us to ensure animals get to experience
life and reproduce. You're now on the same 
quest as he is.
>
>> >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.
>
>Now you are arguing directly against Harrison's position. 

Of course I am, you prat.

>You have stopped even reading what I'm saying.
>
You're saying the same as he is, that animals
benefit from life and being able to reproduce,
and in order to ensure they get this benefit we
have a moral obligation to remove their predators.

>> 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.
>
>Now you're making Harrisons' argument for him. 

... by explaining yours to you.

>You should leave it to him, he does it better himself.
>
Does he?

>> You ought to drop this
>
>I'll drop it when I get bored toying with you. Right 
>now your confusion is mildly entertaining.
>
You aren't fooling anyone here, Ditch. You're
sweating.

>> or email Jon to help you find your way out of it.
>
>Jonathan can find his own patsies, 

He usually waits for them to offer themselves
to him. He doesn't have to go out of his way to
find them.

> but right he's probably busy pigging out
>on turkey and drinking scotch.
>
Probably.