
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:56:43 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:48:55 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> >> >> >> You've been dodging from one foot to the >> >> other on this issue since screwing up early >> >> last week by accepting Harrison's argument >> >> that life is a benefit. >> > >> >You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument. >> >> You do accept Harrison's argument, > >No, I reject his argument now, as I have for two years. > That's clearly a lie, even though you snipped the evidence away which proves it. <unsnip> You do accept Harrison's argument, and this is shown in the threads you've been cutting and running from. [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] > [ipse dixit] > Then explain how they benefit; > 1) from living > 2) from producing [Dutch] It's self-evident [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>
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |