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

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

Looney bins are full of laughing idiots.

> >> 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.

False.

> >> >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.

I didn't check it the first time, it's essentially the same. As usual,
you're full of it. You're attacking me like a schoolkid and doing the same
thing yourself.

> >> >> 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?

Read what I said.

> >> 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.

It's a quack question, reproduction is the primary drive of every species.

> >> 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 Chinese have had their reproductive freedom curtailed, many consider
that an imposition.

> >> >> "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.

Nobody is right 100% of the time, although you have almost achieved 100%
wrong status.

>
> >> 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.

Not a chance in hell.

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

It's self-evident.

> >*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..."

It's a completely different argument. His argument is that being born is a
benefit to the animal being born.

> >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.

It's completely different. Take a look at the exchange between he and I
yesterday.

> >> >> 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.

You're an idiot

> >> 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.

It's obvious.

>
> >> >> 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

That's also true.

> I, personally, don't give it any moral consideration at all.

You don't give anything moral consideration, we all know that.

>
> >> 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.

Yes it is obvious.

> >> 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?

Both are true. Too bad things aren't nice and simple for you like they were
in primary school.

> >> 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?

I'm not talking about a moral consideration, that's your strawman.

> >> >> [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?

Why don't healthy wildlife populations matter to you?

> >> 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"?

That was obviously a typo. It was supposed to read "I haven't said this is a
"moral consideration" issue." It's an issue of observation of cause and
effect.

> >
> >> 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.

Nope, I never made that leap. For one thing, removal predators can also be
harmful.

> >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.

Nope, the only holy grail being pursued here is your quest to prove I'm
inconsistent. You'll never do it.

> >
> >> >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.

Why are you replying to me by arguing against Harrison? That's a strawman.

> >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.

I never said that, you're lying.

> >> 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.

That's not my argument.

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

Yes, he does. You don't grasp even his stupid position correctly, that was
obvious from your convoluted argument against it.

> >> 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.

It's hard slogging digging through your bullshit, that's the only sweat.
You've pretty much exhausted my patience now, I won't wade through another
20k of your repeating of the same strawmen.

> >> 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.

You should know.

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

You ought to do likewise. Your talents would probably be better spent
elsewhere, you're not good at this.