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

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:30:05 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:11:51 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:14:29 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:56:43 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no evidence that "proves it", it's false.
>> >> >
>> >> The evidence you keep snipping away does
>> >> prove you support harrison's argument because
>> >> it's from your own hand.
>> >
>> >It's an absurd claim that cannot be supported by objective evidence.
>>
>> I've supplied the evidence several times now,
>
>You're an idiot. You're arguing that *I* believe in a view that I have
>argued against consistently for an extended period.
>
Yes, that's right, and you did the same when 
you first arrived here as an ARA, but you were
caught out and shown to be a liar then as well 
as now.

The quotes and admissions below prove you 
believe an animal benefits from getting to 
experience life and being able to reproduce after 
their predators have been removed by our moral 
consideration toward them as being "self-evident"
and "obvious."

[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
[end]

And

[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.
>
> 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.
[Dutch]
It's obvious.
[end]

And

[start ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]

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

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

Your argument for removing predators from
wild deer is the same as Harrison's for removing
vegans out to eliminate livestock, and the
basis for your argument is the same as his, 
namely, that they should be allowed to benefit 
from our moral consideration toward them and 
their unborn offspring.