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

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:58:22 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:59:03 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:55:58 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> You haven't addressed the points
>> >
>> >I have addressed every one
>>
>> You have not addressed this post or the points
>> in it, and there are several areas which are
>> important because they show you do in fact
>> support Harrison's argument.
>
>That's ridiculous, they can't show that because I obviously do not.
>
>*I* know what I support.
>
You claim to support something different every 
other week, and most of this is down to being
completely stupid and inept. The discussion you
keep snipping away and running from in this 
instance is a perfect example and proves, from 
you own written word, that you do in fact support 
Harrison's beliefs after all.

<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>