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

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:30:05 -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.
>
>At first I held the mistaken belief that vegans were categorically
>contributing to less animal suffering than non-vegans. I have since realized
>that was wrong. 

That wasn't your only position, liar. You also
made strenuous efforts to argue that animals
have rights, but then you never were what you 
once claimed to be. You lied when you claimed 
to believe in animal rights and deluded yourself 
intentionally to cling to illusions.

    "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
    is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
    need invent ways to try either, which is the
    real relief."
    Dutch 16/02/2002

It's a fact that you "knowingly deluded" yourself
and lied to others when first coming here pretending
to be an ARA, and for some sad reason you also
think everyone else who expresses a belief in AR
must also be just as deluded as you ARE.

    " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
    after all who was it hurting?"
    Dutch 17/03/2002

    "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
    feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
    It was fine as long as I didn't realize it."
    Dutch 19/03/2002

If you look at your first statement you maintain you
invented ways to cling to illusions, and in your other
two you also maintain that you *knowingly* deluded
yourself to feel comfortable, yet you finish off by
writing, "It was fine as long as I didn't realise it."
This is clearly a lie because you did realise it. How
can anyone not realise what they are *knowingly*
doing, liar Dutch?

In fact, if you look at your sorry history here on this
group you'll see plenty of U-turns and lies you've
concerning your beliefs.

1)    "I am an animal rights believer."
        Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

But just a few months later you state;

    "They have no rights because the very idea of a
    world of animals with rights is a laugh."
    Dutch  Date: 2001-08-07

2)    "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
        like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
        They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
        own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
        the animal or species. They have become internalized
        and institutionalized like human rights."
        Dutch   Date: 2001-02-23

But later you state;

        "Humans are sentient, AND humans have rights, does
        not lead to animals are sentient THEREFORE animals
        have rights.
        Dutch  Date: 2002-07-22

>You're still living in denial.
>
You're still deluding yourself.

>> 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
>
>Of course they do. 

Way to go ...!!!!!!!!
>
>> by our moral consideration toward them
>
>That's a lie, I said it was our actions, not moral consideration, towards
>predators that benefitted the deer.
>
I have your quote that you just snipped away,
proving it, liar Dutch.
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

>> as being "self-evident" and "obvious."
>
>As I stated, yes, it's obvious.
>
Way to go ...


>> Your argument for removing predators from
>> wild deer is the same as Harrison's for removing
>> vegans out to eliminate livestock,
>
>I didn't argue that we ought to remove predators, in fact I believe we
>should leave more of them. I stated that removing predators benefits the
>deer population.
>
You state lots of things, all of them opposing 
each other over time. 

>>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.
>
>All false
>
Here's the evidence proving it's all true, liar
Dutch.
<unsnip>
[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