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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote nothing
>
>Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
>
This is about the third snip and run you've
tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
the same in other threads. What's the matter
with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
something?

<unsnip>

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:34:18 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"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.
>
Obviously not, since it's yourself at fault here. It's
not "a statement by Jonathan." You lied.

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

No.
>
>> >> >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.
>
You HAVE agreed that the benefits you're referring
to are 
1) from living
2) from producing
after we have removed their predators, and that these
benefits are "self-evident". 

It isn't self-evident 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.

>> >> >> 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.
>
All you're doing here is telling me what activities
they can pursue while alive.You HAVE agreed 
that the benefits you're referring to are;
1) from living
2) from producing
after we have removed their predators, and that the
benefits are "self-evident". 

It isn't self-evident 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.
>
>> >> 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.
>
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."

>> > [ipse dixit]
>> > Then explain how they benefit;
>> > 1) from living
>> > 2) from producing
>> [Dutch]
>> It's self-evident
>> [end]
>>
See? Your argument is now the same as Harrison's.
Way to go, Dutch.

>> >> 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.
>
Your statements prove beyond any doubt that 
you believe, as Harrison does, that animals
benefit from
1) living
2) reproducing
as being "self-evident"

I am not misrepresenting them, since any efforts
on my behalf to alter them will be archived in
Google.

>My patience is wearing thin.
>
Oh dear.

>> 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.
>
That's what I've been saying of you. Have you
paid any attention to this thread at all?

>> >> >> 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
>
Shameless.

>> 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.
>
Why won't you answer? Why have you gone
after him all this time if you also think that the
benefits he's been talking of are "self-evident"?

>> >> >> 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.
>
Way to go ...

>> >> 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. 

You HAVE agreed that the benefits you're referring
to are 
1) from living
2) from producing
after we have removed their predators, and that the
benefits are "self-evident". 

It isn't self-evident 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.

>Quit wasting my time.
>
Explain it. 
>>
>> >> >> 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. 

It was not a typo. You're so screwed up on this
issue that you can barely think straight anymore.
You're lying.

> What a fucking creep you are.
>
Don't blame me for your stupidity, stupid. You
categorically stated, 
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

>> >> >> 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.
>
I have your quote which proves I am right.
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

>> >> >> 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. 

[ipse dixit]
And now, finally, you've settled on the premise
that both humans and animals benefit from the
 "*elimination* of predators." ; namely wolves.
[Dutch]
It was never otherwise, except in your addled mind.
[end]
Date: 2003-11-24

When are you going to stop trying to lie your
way out of this, Dutch? It's pathetic.
>> >
>> >> >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 

You lost it as soon as you admitted that life is
a benefit, because up until then you've always
insisted it isn't;
    "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 now;
[start ipse dixit]
>> >> 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.
>
Way to go ...
[end]

You've also claimed, as Harrison does, that it's
a moral consideration issue.

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

Way to go ...
<end>