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

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:02:18 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm bored and on a lunch break, so I'll indulge this pile-o-crap once more..

> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:35:17 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:51:46 -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.
> >> >
> >> >> That wasn't your only position
> >> >
> >> >So are you conceding that point?
> >> >
> >> No.
> >
> >Really?
>
> Yes, really.

Too bad for you, I suspect most of your fuckwittedness stems from that one
mistake.

> That attempt at a diversion now
> aside, when are you going to address this post
> you keep snipping and running from, coward?

That was an *on-topic* issue, your half-baked personal attacks are
off-topic.

> That wasn't your only position, liar. You also
> made strenuous efforts to argue that animals
> had rights,

"Rights"? That depends on the context.

> but then you never were what you
> once claimed to

Of course you have nothing to base that on.

> be. You lied when you claimed
> to believe in animal rights and deluded yourself
> intentionally to cling to illusions.

My mental processes mirrored those of most vegans I have met here.

>     "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.

You're a prime example, every "logical" argument you have attempted to make
has been a disaster for you. The only form of "argument" you are moderately
adept at is ad hominem attacks like this, which are fallacious.

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

This is analagous to your delusionary belief that you share no
responsibility for the animals killed in the production of your food.

>     "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

You stay as a ARA because you have no trouble *knowingly* deluding yourself.

> If you look at your first statement you maintain you
> invented ways to cling to illusions,

I tried, but the dishonesty of it went against my nature. Most of you have
NO trouble keeping it up, which I find fascinating.

> 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?

The answer is simple, as long as my delusion was unconscious, it wasn't a
problem. When I consciously challenged my vegan beliefs, they collapsed. If
any vegan would do the same they will have the same experience.

>
> 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.

What you call U-turns, I call personal development.

> 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

Those two statements don't contradict one another. The first describes
"animal rights" as generally understood, not the radical movement. The other
disputes the connection with "sentience".

You're nasty, *and* sloppy, and stupid.

> <end>
>
> It could be that you've been suffering from more
> of these delusions because evidence shows that
> you now accept Harrison's argument.

That's been disproven elsewhere.

> >> >> 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?
>
> It shows that you do accept Harrison's argument
> after all, because he also argues that animals
> benefit from getting to experience life, too, or
> hadn't you noticed?

His argument is that animals benefit by being born, mine is that they
benefit by not being killed.

Can't see the difference? Maybe you shouldn't be here.

> >> >> 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.
> >
> The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
> Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit
> Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
> Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
> Omar Khayyam

Yes, I know the typo happened and that can't be changed, that doesn't mean
it wasn't one. The context proves it was

Every time you try to quote great men you fall flat on your face. That's
because you are basically wrong-headed, stupid, sloppy and unethical.

Now that I have indulged your sad-sack game again, I shall go back to
deleting it.