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

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

-snip old diversionary bullshit-

> >> 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 ...!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?  You didn't refute the point, raise your game.

> >
> >> 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

I told you that was a typo.

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

You still aren't refuting it. You can't. Raise your game.

> >> 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.

My position on this is very consistent, you are floundering.

-snip same old bullshit.

You've lost this argument, just like all the rest. Give some support for
your opinion that deer populations don't benefit from removal of predators.
Start by explaining how human populations don't benefit from the removal of
killers.

Good luck.