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

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
>
> If you checked it the first time and still claimed
> it was "a statement by Jonathan", you are either
> a liar or very stupid, so which is it?
>
> >As usual, you're full of it.
>
> Obviously not since it's yourself at fault here. It's
> not "a statement by Jonathan."

Yes it is. It may not be exactly verbatim, but it's a regurgitation of his
statement that started all this. As usual you're lying.

> >You're attacking me
>
> Stop snivelling and learn to live with it.

Stop snipping unethically, if you can.

> >> >Freedom of reproduction is just one of the benefits
> >> >deer accrue from reduced predation.
> >> >
> >> How do they benefit?
> >
> >Read what I said.
> >
> You haven't explained how they benefit.

They benefit from the reduced pressure by predators, just as we benefit when
police put criminals away.

It's very very simple.

> >> >> 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.
> >
> Thanks for explaining what might drive them,
> but when are you going to explain how they
> benefit, as you've claimed they do? Further
> down this page I asked how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing

Almost every aspect of their lives is benefitted, because they can pursue
their search for food, and mating, whatever, without pressure from
predators.

> and you replied, "It's self-evident." I don't see
> that it is, so you'll have to explain. Ask Harrison
> if you get stuck.

I just did. You get, you just don't want to admit it, because you're
pursuing a game and because you're an idiot.

> >> > Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing
> >> >
> >> Then explain how they benefit;
> >> 1) from living
> >> 2) from producing
> >
> >It's self-evident.
> >
> Then it should be very easy for you to explain.
> Why don't you?

I did.

> >> >*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.
>
> It's exactly the same. He contends that animals
> benefit from living and reproducing, and this is
> exactly what you claim as being "self-evident."

It's not the same.

> > [ipse dixit]
> > Then explain how they benefit;
> > 1) from living
> > 2) from producing
> [Dutch]
> It's self-evident
> [end]
>
> >His argument is that being born is a
> >benefit to the animal being born.
> >
> He argues that as well, yes.
>
> >> >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.
> >
> I did, and all I saw was the same garbled
> rubbish I always see when reading your
> posts. You both believe animals benefit
> from living and producing, and like Harrison
> you're now reduced to his level where
> you both think "It's self-evident."

My statements are easily understandable, you are deliberately
misrepresenting them for your own amusement.

My patience is wearing thin.

> You'll be saying something like this (below)
> soon.
>
> "As long as you're involving yourself, can
> you explain why you feel that no farm animals
> benefit from living? If you can do that, can you
> also explain why you feel that either no animals
> benefit from living, or that some do but farm
> animals do not? Or maybe you think something
> completely different? Or maybe you don't think
> about it at all?
> Harrison 2002-03-18
>
> heh heh heh

You sound like fuckwit alright.

> >> >> >> 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
> >
> Is that your only response, especially after being
> revealed as such a hypocrite?

blah blah blah

Why have you gone
> after him all this time if you also think that the
> benefits he's been talking of are "self-evident"?

You're talking to yourself. Your statements are pure straw.

>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> Well, Dutch?

It's self-evident, you're an idiot.

> >> 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.
> >
> It isn't obvious to me that a man or animal benefits
> from living, because the flip side is that we suffered
> a loss prior to being born, so you'll have to explain it.

That's not what I said, you're an unethical idiot. Quit wasting my time.

>
> >> >> 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.
> >
> "I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
> Dutch 2003-11-28
>
> Liar!

That was a typo. I never said it was a moral consideration issue. If you
read the following sentences in that paragraph it's obvious. To confirm
that, note that I actually *never said it was a moral consideration issue.*

It's so predictable that you would pick up a typo and exploit it. What a
fucking creep you are.


> >> >> 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."
>
> Heh. Nice try, liar. You're fucked up.

Nope, you 're a creep. You can talk in circles until the cows come home, it
amounts to shit when you're wrong, and you're wrong, as usual.

> >> >> 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.
>
> You have. If both the deer and ourselves benefit
> from them getting to experience life and being
> able to reproduce, then way to go - you just made
> Fuckwit's argument for him by providing a moral
> imperative.

That's not the argument I made. another strawman.

You're a time-waster Dreck.

> >
> >> >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
>
> It is, you fool, and even though you've only
> just started out on it, you've adopted half of
> his stock answers already: "It's self-evident."
> You're stuffed, pal.

You lost this argument before it ever started because you began with a false
premiss then you pursued it with strawman arguments.

It's over now, as always, you made a fool of yourself and you don't even
know it.