Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.
ipse dixit
to use Jonathan's argument against Harrison in
an effort to show that Harrison is an ARA or just
completely stupid. By this effort I mean that
Dutch takes parts of Jon's paragraphs and then
replaces a few of his words for a handful he
finds in a thesaurus to sound erudite.
A big part in Jonathan's argument against
Harrison is to convince him that animals do
not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
Dutch argues exactly the same.
"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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
animals do benefit from life and our moral
consideration in removing their predators, first
so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
"The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
and second because being shot is a bound to be
less painful than being brought down by wolves
and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
breathing.."
Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
argument.
[Dutch]
> > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
[ipse dixit]
> No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
> go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
[Dutch]
Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
too close to fuckwit's argument.
Dutch Date: 2003-11-22
I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
in complete agreement with him all the time. He
concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
"Of course they do."
[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
[ipse dixit]
Way to go ....
[end]
Date 2003-11-25
He believes, as Harrison does, that animals do
benefit from experiencing life and being able to
reproduce, even 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
I think Dutch owes Harrison an apology.
Dutch
Why did you go to such lengths to pretend this wasn't you Derek? Did you
think you could fool anyone?
> History shows that Dutch has always been keen
> to use Jonathan's argument against Harrison in
> an effort to show that Harrison is an ARA or just
> completely stupid.
False, I have always used my own arguments. All the arguments against
fuckwit overlap somewhat.
Ironically, your subject line is a statement by Jonathan. hmmmm
> By this effort I mean that
> Dutch takes parts of Jon's paragraphs and then
> replaces a few of his words for a handful he
> finds in a thesaurus to sound erudite.
Oh my, the "you just mimic Jonathan shot". I'm shattered. Except that I'm
disagreeing with him now, how does that work?
> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
> Dutch argues exactly the same.
>
> "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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
> animals do benefit from life and our moral
> consideration in removing their predators, first
> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
No, deer benefit from having predotors removed. Any population does.
> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
> and second because being shot is a bound to be
> less painful than being brought down by wolves
> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
> breathing.."
> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
>
> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek? That seems hypocritical to say the
least, since you're attacking me for doing it
> Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
> for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
> has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
> he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
> argument.
>
> [Dutch]
> > > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
> [ipse dixit]
> > No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
> > go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
> [Dutch]
> Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
> arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
> too close to fuckwit's argument.
> Dutch Date: 2003-11-22
First you mock me because you claim I mimic Jonathan's arguments, now you're
attacking me because I disagree with him.
Seems I can't win..
> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
> "Of course they do."
Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from control of predators?
> [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
> [ipse dixit]
> Way to go ....
> [end]
> Date 2003-11-25
>
> He believes, as Harrison does, that animals do
> benefit from experiencing life and being able to
> reproduce, even 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
>
> I think Dutch owes Harrison an apology.
Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. If ARAs were successful
in immediately ending all meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to live
longer, probably under improved conditions. Yet, "being born" is not a
"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a brain
is.
Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick, you CHOOSE to be an idiot.
dh...@nomail.com
As a predator and as...?
>then
>existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to live
>longer, probably under improved conditions.
Right. Not! What makes any of you think "AR" would provide
something like that for chickens, when your heros at PeTA don't
do that with the unwanted pets they get their hands on?
>Yet, "being born" is not a
>"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a brain
>is.
>
>Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick,
All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
Dutch
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
[..]
> >Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. If ARAs were
successful
> >in immediately ending all meat consumption (removing man as a predator)
>
> As a predator and as...?
That's essentially what we are, except that unlike a predator in nature, for
our own convenience we keep the animals confined and orchestrate their
breeding.
> >then
> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to live
> >longer, probably under improved conditions.
>
> Right. Not! What makes any of you think "AR" would provide
> something like that for chickens, when your heros at PeTA don't
> do that with the unwanted pets they get their hands on?
I don't really know, maybe they wouldn't.
> >Yet, "being born" is not a
> >"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a
brain
> >is.
> >
> >Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick,
>
> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
> alive.
It can't, that's the point. Life itself isn't a benefit because an animal
has to first exist before it can receive a benefit. Deer receive a benefit
when we control predators, they have a huge stressor removed from their
lives.
> If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
> that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
"something that doesn't have a life" is just another way of saying something
that doesn't exist, since by their nature, animals have life as soon as they
come into existence. So you intend to show that something non-existent can
benefit, go ahead.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>
>Why did you go to such lengths to pretend this wasn't
>you Derek? Did you think you could fool anyone?
>
"I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself."
Ipse dixit 2003-11-9
I might be Derek, but there again I might not be.
One thing for sure is that the last laugh is always
on those who cannot support their claims of who
I am with any supporting evidence. Even the nym,
by definition is an unsupported assertion, so I'll
always have that last laugh, whoever I am.
>> History shows that Dutch has always been keen
>> to use Jonathan's argument against Harrison in
>> an effort to show that Harrison is an ARA or just
>> completely stupid.
>
>False, I have always used my own arguments.
I haven't seen one argument from you against
Harrison that is any different from Jon's. You
snipe at Harrison from behind Jon's skirt, using
his arguments, but with a few changes to the
paragraphs he uses with the help of your handy
thesaurus.
>Ironically, your subject line is a statement by
>Jonathan.
No, it isn't. Check it again.
> hmmmm
>
I don't know that one. Is it the lead-in to Simon
& Garfunkle's "America"?
>> By this effort I mean that
>> Dutch takes parts of Jon's paragraphs and then
>> replaces a few of his words for a handful he
>> finds in a thesaurus to sound erudite.
>
>Oh my the "you just mimic Jonathan shot". I'm
>shattered. Except that I'm disagreeing with him
>now, how does that work?
>
You're forced into disagreeing with him in this
instance to save your embarrassment in being
found to be in agreement with Harrison after
all this time. That's why.
>> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
>> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
>> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
>> Dutch argues exactly the same.
>>
>> "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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
>> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
>> animals do benefit from life and our moral
>> consideration in removing their predators, first
>> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
>
>No, deer benefit from having predotors removed.
And this benefit is a benefit, "first because they
are able to reproduce prodigiously", according
to you, so explain how an animal benefits from
reproducing, Dutch. After that, seeing as we
benefit from it as well, how is this not a very
real moral imperative for us to ensure we all
continue receiving it?
>
>> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
>> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
>> and second because being shot is a bound to be
>> less painful than being brought down by wolves
>> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
>> breathing.."
>> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
>>
>> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
>> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>
>Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek?
He made a valid observation, but fortunately
for you he has decided to back off and let you
get away with claiming animals benefit from
living and reproducing, so I've decided to find
out why Jon accepts your argument and not
Harrison's. Buckle up; it's going to be a long
and bumpy ride.
>
>> Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
>> for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
>> has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
>> he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
>> argument.
>>
>> [Dutch]
>> > > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
>> [ipse dixit]
>> > No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
>> > go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>> [Dutch]
>> Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
>> arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
>> too close to fuckwit's argument.
>> Dutch Date: 2003-11-22
>
>First you mock me because you claim I mimic
>Jonathan's arguments, now you're attacking me
>because I disagree with him.
>
I'm attacking you for lying about your beliefs
and your hypocritical attacks on Harrison for
holding those same beliefs himself. 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?
>Seems I can't win..
>
It's a fact that you won't.
>> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
>> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
>> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
>> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
>> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
>> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
>> "Of course they do."
>
>Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from
>control of predators?
>
I don't give it any moral consideration at all.
Look, for once in your miserable life try to
understand the error I'm showing you. If you
believe animals benefit from our removal of
their predators, then you are using a moral
consideration when viewing their suffering
and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
control is a good thing. 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 ...
>> [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
>> [ipse dixit]
>> Way to go ....
>> [end]
>> Date 2003-11-25
>>
>> He believes, as Harrison does, that animals do
>> benefit from experiencing life and being able to
>> reproduce, even 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
>>
>> I think Dutch owes Harrison an apology.
>
>Wild populations benefit from removal of predators.
For you, this should mean nothing, even if
it were proved true. You are giving moral
consideration to a perceived benefit and
concluding it is good for the animals and
for us to receive this benefit. If it benefits
us as well as the animals, then you've found
Harrison's Holy Grail, haven't you?
>If ARAs were successful in immediately ending all
>meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
>existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they
>would get to livelonger, probably under improved
>conditions.
No, Dutch. When ARAs finally abolish the
livestock industry we will cause their extinction,
according to Harrison. To him, vegans are the
ultimate predator upon them, and he argues, as
you do, that there is a moral imperative to remove
that threat so they can get to experience life and
reproduce. You ought to drop this or email Jon to
help you find your way out of it.
ipse dixit
[..]
> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>
2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
therefore
3) life is not a benefit
or in contradiction to (3)
4) life is a benefit
If (1) and (4) are true, we experienced a loss prior to
being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we
cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2),
and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot
all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false,
meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original
conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid
conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3)
you must also find a fault in one of the premises.
dh...@nomail.com
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>[..]
>> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>>alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>>that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>>
>1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
Wrong to start with. If you were right, then if a free new car is a
benefit, we experience a loss prior to getting a free new car...and
that would apply to every other benefit possible.
>2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>therefore
>3) life is not a benefit
>or in contradiction to (3)
>4) life is a benefit
>
>If (1) and (4) are true,
(1) is nothing like true. We can safely say that it is completely
false, and need be given no consideration. In fact, the best
thing would be to delete it totally from your formula.
(4) is true. At least, so far no one has been able to show that
life is not the benefit which makes all others possible. All evidence
shows that it is, and we have as yet seen no evidence to show
that it is not. We would need to see at least one example of how
something that is not alive can benefit. By now my oppinion is that
no such example can be given.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. If ARAs were
>successful
>> >in immediately ending all meat consumption (removing man as a predator)
>>
>> As a predator and as...?
>
>That's essentially what we are, except that unlike a predator in nature, for
>our own convenience we keep the animals confined and orchestrate their
>breeding.
We provide life--some good and some bad--for billions of animals.
>> >then
>> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to live
>> >longer, probably under improved conditions.
>>
>> Right. Not! What makes any of you think "AR" would provide
>> something like that for chickens, when your heros at PeTA don't
>> do that with the unwanted pets they get their hands on?
>
>I don't really know, maybe they wouldn't.
There's no reason to believe "AR" would provide longer, or any, life for
livestock.
>> >Yet, "being born" is not a
>> >"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a
>brain
>> >is.
>> >
>> >Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick,
>>
>> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>> alive.
>
>It can't, that's the point. Life itself isn't a benefit because an animal
>has to first exist before it can receive a benefit. Deer receive a benefit
>when we control predators, they have a huge stressor removed from their
>lives.
>
>> If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>> that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>
>"something that doesn't have a life" is just another way of saying something
>that doesn't exist,
You really haven't given this much thought apparently. You see the letters
in this sentence? You are seeing them with a monitor, which according to you
is "something that doesn't have a life" so it doesn't exist. We don't agree
about that btw.
>since by their nature, animals have life as soon as they
>come into existence. So you intend to show that something non-existent
This is probably more detail than you're going to be able to deal with, but
the material we're composed of doesn't just poof into existence. Much of it
has been around for billions of years. Some of it has composed other animals
....some of that has composed previous generations of stars.... So what
exactly does it take in order for something to benefit? Life for one thing, there
is no question about that, even though you can't bring yourself to face such
a harsh and terrifying (for you, for some reason) cruel reality. Since you can't
bring yourself to accept that most simple and basic first observation, trying to
consider exactly what it is that *can* benefit is going to be a challenge you're
not prepared to take on. But if you want to give it a go anyway: Can your
hand benefit? Can your leg? Those things are in some sense "alive", but I
wouldn't say that they could benefit. How about your head...can that benefit?
Maybe, since it can detect the things it experiences. Can your eyes? Your
mouth? I'd say no, they just carry the info into the brain where whatever it
is that can benefit resides, as far as we know. Can your brain benefit? Or
do we have to go deeper than that in order to determine exactly what it is
that's capable of benefitting?
>can
>benefit, go ahead.
You're the one who needs to show how something that's not alive can
benefit, in order to show that life's not the benefit needed to make all others
possible. Take the simplest example and explain how a dead animal can
benefit. If you can't do that, we are left with the horrible (to you for some
reason) realization that life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
ipse dixit
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:48:10 GMT, ipse dixit <nos...@email.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>[..]
>>> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>>>alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>>>that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>>>
>>1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
>
> Wrong to start with.
These are your premises. You claim that life is a
benefit and that unborn animals suffer a loss if
their lives are prevented;
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
>If you were right
It isn't MY premise, so the question is, "If YOU
were right rather than myself.
>, then if a free new car is a
>benefit, we experience a loss prior to getting a free new car...and
>that would apply to every other benefit possible.
>
>>2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>>therefore
>>3) life is not a benefit
>>or in contradiction to (3)
>>4) life is a benefit
>>
>>If (1) and (4) are true,
>
> (1) is nothing like true.
It is according to your argument. It's well
documented that you believe life is a benefit
and that not living is a loss.
>We can safely say that it is completely
>false, and need be given no consideration. In fact, the best
>thing would be to delete it totally from your formula.
It's a syllogism that describes your position
accurately. Your quotes proves it.
> (4) is true. At least, so far no one has been able to
>show that life is not the benefit which makes all others
>possible. All evidence shows that it is, and we have as
>yet seen no evidence to show that it is not.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from
ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that
something must be true, simply because it hasn't been
proved false.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
>We would need to see at least one example of how
>something that is not alive can benefit. By now my
>oppinion is that no such example can be given.
>
If life is a benefit, then apart from your quotes
which reveal your belief that no life is a loss,
it necessarily must be a loss, so you're stuck
with it.
Ray
"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:fb09svkr7mcsdohjp...@4ax.com...
Dutch owes nobody an apology, you should apologize to the group for your own
crackpot postings, you are insane. You and your fellow poster ( the third
man) 'Derek Nash' have caused serious harm to the AR posters on these
groups.
Good job we do not take you seriously.
Dutch
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:24:54 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> >Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. If ARAs were
> >successful
> >> >in immediately ending all meat consumption (removing man as a
predator)
> >>
> >> As a predator and as...?
> >
> >That's essentially what we are, except that unlike a predator in nature,
for
> >our own convenience we keep the animals confined and orchestrate their
> >breeding.
>
> We provide life--some good and some bad--for billions of animals.
No, we most emphatically do not "provide life", such a thing is beyond the
scope of human abilities. We skillfully arrange circumstances in such a
fashion that life happens in a way that benefits us. Never at any time have
we ever been able to provide or create life. That is simply a falsehood that
you use as a rationalization.
> >> >then
> >> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to
live
> >> >longer, probably under improved conditions.
> >>
> >> Right. Not! What makes any of you think "AR" would provide
> >> something like that for chickens, when your heros at PeTA don't
> >> do that with the unwanted pets they get their hands on?
> >
> >I don't really know, maybe they wouldn't.
>
> There's no reason to believe "AR" would provide longer, or any, life
for
> livestock.
Sure there are, there are plenty of reasons to believe it. I still don't
know to what extent it would happen, neither do you.
> >> >Yet, "being born" is not a
> >> >"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a
> >brain
> >> >is.
> >> >
> >> >Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick,
> >>
> >> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
> >> alive.
> >
> >It can't, that's the point. Life itself isn't a benefit because an animal
> >has to first exist before it can receive a benefit. Deer receive a
benefit
> >when we control predators, they have a huge stressor removed from their
> >lives.
> >
> >> If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
> >> that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
> >
> >"something that doesn't have a life" is just another way of saying
something
> >that doesn't exist,
>
> You really haven't given this much thought apparently.
I've given it sufficient thought.
> You see the letters
> in this sentence? You are seeing them with a monitor, which according to
you
> is "something that doesn't have a life" so it doesn't exist. We don't
agree
> about that btw.
You are muddled, the "somethings" we are talking about are *animals*, not
rocks, not computers. Inanimate objects cannot "benefit", non-existent
things cannot benefit.
*Animals* don't exist *until they have life*, therefore life itself cannot
logically be a benefit.
> >since by their nature, animals have life as soon as they
> >come into existence. So you intend to show that something non-existent
>
> This is probably more detail than you're going to be able to deal
with, but
> the material we're composed of doesn't just poof into existence. Much of
it
> has been around for billions of years. Some of it has composed other
animals
> ....some of that has composed previous generations of stars.... So what
> exactly does it take in order for something to benefit?
Animals must exist as animals before they can receive a benefit (or harm).
> Life for one thing, there
> is no question about that, even though you can't bring yourself to face
such
> a harsh and terrifying (for you, for some reason) cruel reality. Since you
can't
> bring yourself to accept that most simple and basic first observation,
trying to
> consider exactly what it is that *can* benefit is going to be a challenge
you're
> not prepared to take on. But if you want to give it a go anyway: Can your
> hand benefit? Can your leg?
If it were broken it would benefit from a cast.
>Those things are in some sense "alive", but I
> wouldn't say that they could benefit. How about your head...can that
benefit?
Of course, yours could benefit from an examination.
> Maybe, since it can detect the things it experiences. Can your eyes? Your
> mouth? I'd say no, they just carry the info into the brain where whatever
it
> is that can benefit resides, as far as we know. Can your brain benefit?
Yours could, from a transplant.
Or
> do we have to go deeper than that in order to determine exactly what it is
> that's capable of benefitting?
You're hopeless.
> >can
> >benefit, go ahead.
>
> You're the one who needs to show how something that's not alive can
> benefit, in order to show that life's not the benefit needed to make all
others
> possible. Take the simplest example and explain how a dead animal can
> benefit. If you can't do that, we are left with the horrible (to you for
some
> reason) realization that life is the benefit which makes all others
possible.
Life itself isn't a benefit, the idea is just semantically illogical.
So much for the idea that I'm making your argument for you.
Dutch
You call that convoluted mess logic? Stick to copying stuff you don't
understand.
Dutch
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >
> >Why did you go to such lengths to pretend this wasn't
> >you Derek? Did you think you could fool anyone?
> >
> "I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
> for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you
Typical evasion from a deviod-of-integrity scum.
>, and if
> Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
> and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
> may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
> being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
> welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself."
> Ipse dixit 2003-11-9
You didn't fool me with this charade dickhead, you only show your true lack
of character. What are trying to prove, or hide? Are you ashamed of your
debacle with Ray and Zak?
>
> I might be Derek, but there again I might not be.
> One thing for sure is that the last laugh is always
> on those who cannot support their claims of who
> I am with any supporting evidence. Even the nym,
> by definition is an unsupported assertion, so I'll
> always have that last laugh, whoever I am.
Yea, you can laugh all you like, along with the rest of the low-life losers.
> >> History shows that Dutch has always been keen
> >> to use Jonathan's argument against Harrison in
> >> an effort to show that Harrison is an ARA or just
> >> completely stupid.
> >
> >False, I have always used my own arguments.
>
> I haven't seen one argument from you against
> Harrison that is any different from Jon's.
You haven't paid attention then.
> You
> snipe at Harrison from behind Jon's skirt, using
> his arguments, but with a few changes to the
> paragraphs he uses with the help of your handy
> thesaurus.
All horseshit, from the biggest shit-shoveler ever.
> >Ironically, your subject line is a statement by
> >Jonathan.
>
> No, it isn't. Check it again.
What, is there a difference in punctuation? Fuckhead.
> > hmmmm
> >
> I don't know that one. Is it the lead-in to Simon
> & Garfunkle's "America"?
No, it's the sound of you talking circles around yourself. You're accussing
me of agreeing with Jonathan too much in a thread about me disagreeing with
Jonathan, and you are using a quote of his in the subject. Can't you see how
you have surrounded yourself in irony?
>
> >> By this effort I mean that
> >> Dutch takes parts of Jon's paragraphs and then
> >> replaces a few of his words for a handful he
> >> finds in a thesaurus to sound erudite.
> >
> >Oh my the "you just mimic Jonathan shot". I'm
> >shattered. Except that I'm disagreeing with him
> >now, how does that work?
> >
> You're forced into disagreeing with him in this
> instance to save your embarrassment in being
> found to be in agreement with Harrison after
> all this time. That's why.
Nobody forced me to disagree with him, I don't consult him about what to
post. I enjoy disagreeing with him, I usually learn something in the
process. All you treach me is how sneaky someone can be.
> >> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
> >> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
> >> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
> >> Dutch argues exactly the same.
> >>
> >> "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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
> >> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
> >> animals do benefit from life and our moral
> >> consideration in removing their predators, first
> >> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
> >
> >No, deer benefit from having predotors removed.
>
> And this benefit is a benefit, "first because they
> are able to reproduce prodigiously",
Freedom of reproduction is just one of the benefits deer accrue from reduced
predation.
> according
> to you, so explain how an animal benefits from
> reproducing, Dutch.
That's a stupid question.
> After that, seeing as we
> benefit from it as well,
> how is this not a very
> real moral imperative for us to ensure we all
> continue receiving it?
Many people consider it one.
> >> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
> >> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
> >> and second because being shot is a bound to be
> >> less painful than being brought down by wolves
> >> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
> >> breathing.."
> >> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
> >>
> >> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
> >> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
> >
> >Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek?
>
> He made a valid observation,
No, it's one of the rare times that he didn't, and you went for it.
> but fortunately
> for you he has decided to back off and let you
> get away with claiming animals benefit from
> living and reproducing, so I've decided to find
> out why Jon accepts your argument and not
> Harrison's. Buckle up; it's going to be a long
> and bumpy ride.
ROTFL! Not from you. You are completely and hopeless muddled. Animals DO
benefit from living and reproducing *without constant fear of attacks from
predators*.
The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit, and that therefore
never having a chance to be born is a loss.
> >> Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
> >> for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
> >> has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
> >> he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
> >> argument.
> >>
> >> [Dutch]
> >> > > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
> >> [ipse dixit]
> >> > No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
> >> > go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
> >> [Dutch]
> >> Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
> >> arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
> >> too close to fuckwit's argument.
> >> Dutch Date: 2003-11-22
> >
> >First you mock me because you claim I mimic
> >Jonathan's arguments, now you're attacking me
> >because I disagree with him.
> >
> 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.
> 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.
> >Seems I can't win..
> >
> It's a fact that you won't.
Not in in your pea brain maybe, but in the real world I always win against
you, everyone does.
> >> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
> >> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
> >> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
> >> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
> >> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
> >> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
> >> "Of course they do."
> >
> >Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from
> >control of predators?
> >
> I don't give it any moral consideration at all.
That's not what I asked. Why don't you answer the question?
Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from control of predators?
Failure to answer will reveal that you are afraid of something.
> Look, for once in your miserable life try to
> understand the error I'm showing you.
I can't, there is no error on my part.
> If you
> believe animals benefit from our removal of
> their predators,
Which is obvious...
> then you are using a moral
> consideration when viewing their suffering
> and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
> control is a good thing.
I said that predator control is beneficial to deer. If you think a robust
deer population is a good thing, then you probably approve of predator
control.
This can't get any simpler Derek.
> 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.
> >> [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
> >> [ipse dixit]
> >> Way to go ....
> >> [end]
> >> Date 2003-11-25
> >>
> >> He believes, as Harrison does, that animals do
> >> benefit from experiencing life and being able to
> >> reproduce, even 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
> >>
> >> I think Dutch owes Harrison an apology.
> >
> >Wild populations benefit from removal of predators.
>
> For you, this should mean nothing, even if
> it were proved true.
I never said it meant anything to me, I am simply stating a fact.
> 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. That's your strawman. I
said that wild populations benefit from removal of predators.
> 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. His holy grail is convincing us that being
born is a benefit that we bestow upon livestock, and conversely withhold by
being a vegetarian. I'm not making that argument, I despise that argument.
> >If ARAs were successful in immediately ending all
> >meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they
> >would get to livelonger, probably under improved
> >conditions.
>
> No, Dutch. When ARAs finally abolish the
> livestock industry we will cause their extinction,
> according to Harrison.
Now you are arguing directly against Harrison's position. You have stopped
even reading what I'm saying.
> To him, vegans are the
> ultimate predator upon them, and he argues, as
> you do, that there is a moral imperative to remove
> that threat so they can get to experience life and
> reproduce.
Now you're making Harrisons' argument for him. You should leave it to him,
he does it better himself.
> You ought to drop this
I'll drop it when I get bored toying with you. Right now your confusion is
mildly entertaining.
> or email Jon to help you find your way out of it.
Jonathan can find his own patsies, but right he's probably busy pigging out
on turkey and drinking scotch.
ipse dixit
It's miles beyond your capabilities to understand
and a whole light year beyond your capabilities to
produce anything similar in refutation to Harrison's
argument, which is why you've had to rely on Jon's
lead all this time, but nevertheless, it's a perfect
piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
not a benefit. Try to offer a valid argument against
it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
it's wrong without being able to say why?
Dutch
You sound exactly like fuckwit. It's unecessarily convoluted, the refutation
of his stupid thesis can be made in simple, plain english. Life itself
cannot be a benefit because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who necessarily
must already be alive. If he is alive then he cannot receive the benefit of
life, he already has it.
Rubystars
experienced a loss because they never got to exist and "experience life."
Also, does Santa Claus experience a loss?
I'd appreciate an answer.
If so, why, and if not, how are they any different from other beings that
don't exist?
-Rubystars
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >
>> I might be Derek, but there again I might not be.
>> One thing for sure is that the last laugh is always
>> on those who cannot support their claims of who
>> I am with any supporting evidence. Even the nym,
>> by definition is an unsupported assertion, so I'll
>> always have that last laugh, whoever I am.
>
>Yea, you can laugh all you like
I do.
>> You
>> snipe at Harrison from behind Jon's skirt, using
>> his arguments, but with a few changes to the
>> paragraphs he uses with the help of your handy
>> thesaurus.
>
>All horseshit, from the biggest shit-shoveler ever.
>
You've never even attempted an argument
of your own against him. You wait for Jon
to come up with something and then copy it.
>> >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.
>> >> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
>> >> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
>> >> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
>> >> Dutch argues exactly the same.
>> >>
>> >> "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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
>> >> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
>> >> animals do benefit from life and our moral
>> >> consideration in removing their predators, first
>> >> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
>> >
>> >No, deer benefit from having predotors removed.
>>
>> And this benefit is a benefit, "first because they
>> are able to reproduce prodigiously",
>
>Freedom of reproduction is just one of the benefits
>deer accrue from reduced predation.
>
How do they benefit?
>> 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.
>> After that, seeing as we benefit from it as well,
>> how is this not a very real moral imperative for
>> us to ensure we all continue receiving it?
>
>Many people consider it one.
>
Way to go ...
>> >> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
>> >> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
>> >> and second because being shot is a bound to be
>> >> less painful than being brought down by wolves
>> >> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
>> >> breathing.."
>> >> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
>> >>
>> >> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
>> >> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>> >
>> >Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek?
>>
>> He made a valid observation,
>
>No, it's one of the rare times that he didn't
Then, since he has made an invalid observation
we can safely assume he's made many more as
well. Harrison will be pleased.
>> but fortunately
>> for you he has decided to back off and let you
>> get away with claiming animals benefit from
>> living and reproducing, so I've decided to find
>> out why Jon accepts your argument and not
>> Harrison's. Buckle up; it's going to be a long
>> and bumpy ride.
>
>ROTFL! Not from you.
Absolutely, from me.
> Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing
>
Then explain how they benefit;
1) from living
2) from producing
>*without constant fear of attacks from predators*.
>The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit,
You've just wrote exactly the same thing; "Animals
DO benefit from living..."
>and that therefore
>never having a chance to be born is a loss.
>
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.
>> >> Apart from obviously making Harrison's argument
>> >> for him, as Jon says, Dutch now claims that Jon
>> >> has made a mistake believing that, and the reason
>> >> he gives is, "He's become too close to Fuckwit's
>> >> argument.
>> >>
>> >> [Dutch]
>> >> > > >Jonathan was mistaken in this case
>> >> [ipse dixit]
>> >> > No, he wasn't. He correctly observed, "Way to
>> >> > go - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
>> >> [Dutch]
>> >> Nope, he is usually absolutely dead-on in his
>> >> arguments but in this case incorrect. He's become
>> >> too close to fuckwit's argument.
>> >> Dutch Date: 2003-11-22
>> >
>> >First you mock me because you claim I mimic
>> >Jonathan's arguments, now you're attacking me
>> >because I disagree with him.
>> >
>> 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.
>> 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.
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.
>> >> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
>> >> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
>> >> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
>> >> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
>> >> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
>> >> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
>> >> "Of course they do."
>> >
>> >Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from
>> >control of predators?
>> >
>> I don't give it any moral consideration at all.
>
>That's not what I asked. Why don't you answer the question?
>
>Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from control of predators?
>
>Failure to answer will reveal that you are afraid of something.
>
I'll let you answer it for me, but seeing as you believe
wildlife benefits from the elimination of their predators,
why did you lie to "JethroUK©" by telling him the exact
opposite, that wildlife benefits from predation?
"wildlife populations frequently benefit from predation."
Dutch Date: 2003-06-30
I, personally, don't give it any moral consideration at all.
>> Look, for once in your miserable life try to
>> understand the error I'm showing you.
>
>I can't, there is no error on my part.
>
>> If you believe animals benefit from our removal
>> of their predators,
>
>Which is obvious...
>
No, it isn't. You've yet to show how they benefit.
>> then you are using a moral
>> consideration when viewing their suffering
>> and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
>> control is a good thing.
>
>I said that predator control is beneficial to deer.
You've also wrote that, "wildlife populations
frequently benefit from predation." as well,
so how do I know when you're telling the
truth?
>> 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?
And who sounds like Harrison?
>> 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"?
>
>> 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.
>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.
>
>> >If ARAs were successful in immediately ending all
>> >meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
>> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they
>> >would get to livelonger, probably under improved
>> >conditions.
>>
>> No, Dutch. When ARAs finally abolish the
>> livestock industry we will cause their extinction,
>> according to Harrison.
>
>Now you are arguing directly against Harrison's position.
Of course I am, you prat.
>You have stopped even reading what I'm saying.
>
You're saying the same as he is, that animals
benefit from life and being able to reproduce,
and in order to ensure they get this benefit we
have a moral obligation to remove their predators.
>> To him, vegans are the
>> ultimate predator upon them, and he argues, as
>> you do, that there is a moral imperative to remove
>> that threat so they can get to experience life and
>> reproduce.
>
>Now you're making Harrisons' argument for him.
... by explaining yours to you.
>You should leave it to him, he does it better himself.
>
Does he?
>> You ought to drop this
>
>I'll drop it when I get bored toying with you. Right
>now your confusion is mildly entertaining.
>
You aren't fooling anyone here, Ditch. You're
sweating.
>> or email Jon to help you find your way out of it.
>
>Jonathan can find his own patsies,
He usually waits for them to offer themselves
to him. He doesn't have to go out of his way to
find them.
> but right he's probably busy pigging out
>on turkey and drinking scotch.
>
Probably.
ipse dixit
>I wonder if dh_ld thinks that unicorns and dragons and faeries have
>experienced a loss because they never got to exist and "experience life."
>
You'll have to ask Harrison.
>Also, does Santa Claus experience a loss?
>
You'll have to ask Harrison.
>I'd appreciate an answer.
>
You'll have to ask Harrison.
>If so, why, and if not, how are they any different from other beings that
>don't exist?
>
You'll have to ask Harrison.
>-Rubystars
>
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:bosdsvgir31qukvg1...@4ax.com...
We'll see.
>can
>be made in simple, plain english. Life itself cannot
>be a benefit
Then you aren't refuting it. You are agreeing
with the conclusion that life is not a benefit.
Or at least you are in THIS thread.
>because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>he already has it.
>
What you've just done is successfully defend
premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
I reached and that Harrison rejects.
I'm not disputing that the conclusion (3) is true,
but in order to logically prove it false, as Harrison
does, he MUST successfully defeat one of his
OWN premise as well, which in effect will ruin
both his arguments in one go.
He claims that life is a benefit, and his quotes
here prove that he holds that belief. He also
believes animals experience a loss if their lives
are prevented.
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
.
Put the two together and you have his first
premise:
1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
( if x, then y)
The second premise is mine and beyond doubt,
although he is still perfectly entitled to challenge it;
2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born.
( not y )
The logical conclusion from these premises is
(3) Life is not a benefit.
( not x)
This syllogism is in the form
Premise 1) if x then y
Premise 2) not y
therefore
Conclusion 3) not x
If Harrison wants to argue (3) is false, that life
is a benefit, then he must also challenge one of
the two premises as well since the conclusion
logically follows from (1) and (2). He cannot
challenge (2) since we need to be alive in order
to experience something, so he must challenge
his own premise (1) instead. That's the beauty
of deductive logic: it forces your opponent to
attack his own premise if he wants to prove
your conclusion to his hogwash is wrong.
Dutch
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> I might be Derek, but there again I might not be.
> >> One thing for sure is that the last laugh is always
> >> on those who cannot support their claims of who
> >> I am with any supporting evidence. Even the nym,
> >> by definition is an unsupported assertion, so I'll
> >> always have that last laugh, whoever I am.
> >
> >Yea, you can laugh all you like
>
> I do.
Looney bins are full of laughing idiots.
> >> You
> >> snipe at Harrison from behind Jon's skirt, using
> >> his arguments, but with a few changes to the
> >> paragraphs he uses with the help of your handy
> >> thesaurus.
> >
> >All horseshit, from the biggest shit-shoveler ever.
> >
> You've never even attempted an argument
> of your own against him. You wait for Jon
> to come up with something and then copy it.
False.
> >> >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. As usual,
you're full of it. You're attacking me like a schoolkid and doing the same
thing yourself.
> >> >> A big part in Jonathan's argument against
> >> >> Harrison is to convince him that animals do
> >> >> not benefit from life per se, and, as expected
> >> >> Dutch argues exactly the same.
> >> >>
> >> >> "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, less than a week ago Dutch made a huge
> >> >> error in finally admitting he was wrong, and that
> >> >> animals do benefit from life and our moral
> >> >> consideration in removing their predators, first
> >> >> so they can then reproduce prodigiously.
> >> >
> >> >No, deer benefit from having predotors removed.
> >>
> >> And this benefit is a benefit, "first because they
> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously",
> >
> >Freedom of reproduction is just one of the benefits
> >deer accrue from reduced predation.
> >
> How do they benefit?
Read what I said.
> >> 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.
> >> After that, seeing as we benefit from it as well,
> >> how is this not a very real moral imperative for
> >> us to ensure we all continue receiving it?
> >
> >Many people consider it one.
> >
> Way to go ...
The Chinese have had their reproductive freedom curtailed, many consider
that an imposition.
> >> >> "The deer benefit from the loss of predators, first
> >> >> because they are able to reproduce prodigiously,
> >> >> and second because being shot is a bound to be
> >> >> less painful than being brought down by wolves
> >> >> and having one's guts ripped out while you're still
> >> >> breathing.."
> >> >> Dutch Date: 2003-11-20
> >> >>
> >> >> To which Jonathan Ball replied, "Way to go - you
> >> >> just made Fuckwit's argument for him."
> >> >
> >> >Why are you parroting Jonathan Derek?
> >>
> >> He made a valid observation,
> >
> >No, it's one of the rare times that he didn't
>
> Then, since he has made an invalid observation
> we can safely assume he's made many more as
> well. Harrison will be pleased.
Nobody is right 100% of the time, although you have almost achieved 100%
wrong status.
>
> >> but fortunately
> >> for you he has decided to back off and let you
> >> get away with claiming animals benefit from
> >> living and reproducing, so I've decided to find
> >> out why Jon accepts your argument and not
> >> Harrison's. Buckle up; it's going to be a long
> >> and bumpy ride.
> >
> >ROTFL! Not from you.
>
> Absolutely, from me.
Not a chance in hell.
> > Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing
> >
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
It's self-evident.
> >*without constant fear of attacks from predators*.
> >The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit,
>
> You've just wrote exactly the same thing; "Animals
> DO benefit from living..."
It's a completely different argument. His argument is that being born is a
benefit to the animal being born.
> >and that therefore
> >never having a chance to be born is a loss.
> >
> 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.
You're an idiot
It's obvious.
>
> >> >> I'd say it was the opposite actually, because it's
> >> >> clear that although Dutch's spiteful attacks on
> >> >> Harrison have been unwarranted, he's also been
> >> >> in complete agreement with him all the time. He
> >> >> concedes that animals do benefit from "getting
> >> >> to experience life" AND reproducing by admitting,
> >> >> "Of course they do."
> >> >
> >> >Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from
> >> >control of predators?
> >> >
> >> I don't give it any moral consideration at all.
> >
> >That's not what I asked. Why don't you answer the question?
> >
> >Do you not agree that deer populations benefit from control of predators?
> >
> >Failure to answer will reveal that you are afraid of something.
> >
> I'll let you answer it for me, but seeing as you believe
> wildlife benefits from the elimination of their predators,
> why did you lie to "JethroUK©" by telling him the exact
> opposite, that wildlife benefits from predation?
> "wildlife populations frequently benefit from predation."
> Dutch Date: 2003-06-30
That's also true.
> I, personally, don't give it any moral consideration at all.
You don't give anything moral consideration, we all know that.
>
> >> Look, for once in your miserable life try to
> >> understand the error I'm showing you.
> >
> >I can't, there is no error on my part.
> >
> >> If you believe animals benefit from our removal
> >> of their predators,
> >
> >Which is obvious...
> >
> No, it isn't. You've yet to show how they benefit.
Yes it is obvious.
> >> then you are using a moral
> >> consideration when viewing their suffering
> >> and ability to reproduce in deciding predation
> >> control is a good thing.
> >
> >I said that predator control is beneficial to deer.
>
> You've also wrote that, "wildlife populations
> frequently benefit from predation." as well,
> so how do I know when you're telling the
> truth?
Both are true. Too bad things aren't nice and simple for you like they were
in primary school.
> >> 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.
Why don't healthy wildlife populations matter to you?
> >> 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." It's an issue of observation of cause and
effect.
> >
> >> 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. For one thing, removal predators can also be
harmful.
> >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, the only holy grail being pursued here is your quest to prove I'm
inconsistent. You'll never do it.
> >
> >> >If ARAs were successful in immediately ending all
> >> >meat consumption (removing man as a predator) then
> >> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they
> >> >would get to livelonger, probably under improved
> >> >conditions.
> >>
> >> No, Dutch. When ARAs finally abolish the
> >> livestock industry we will cause their extinction,
> >> according to Harrison.
> >
> >Now you are arguing directly against Harrison's position.
>
> Of course I am, you prat.
Why are you replying to me by arguing against Harrison? That's a strawman.
> >You have stopped even reading what I'm saying.
> >
> You're saying the same as he is, that animals
> benefit from life and being able to reproduce,
> and in order to ensure they get this benefit we
> have a moral obligation to remove their predators.
I never said that, you're lying.
> >> To him, vegans are the
> >> ultimate predator upon them, and he argues, as
> >> you do, that there is a moral imperative to remove
> >> that threat so they can get to experience life and
> >> reproduce.
> >
> >Now you're making Harrisons' argument for him.
>
> ... by explaining yours to you.
That's not my argument.
> >You should leave it to him, he does it better himself.
> >
> Does he?
Yes, he does. You don't grasp even his stupid position correctly, that was
obvious from your convoluted argument against it.
> >> You ought to drop this
> >
> >I'll drop it when I get bored toying with you. Right
> >now your confusion is mildly entertaining.
> >
> You aren't fooling anyone here, Ditch. You're
> sweating.
It's hard slogging digging through your bullshit, that's the only sweat.
You've pretty much exhausted my patience now, I won't wade through another
20k of your repeating of the same strawmen.
> >> or email Jon to help you find your way out of it.
> >
> >Jonathan can find his own patsies,
>
> He usually waits for them to offer themselves
> to him. He doesn't have to go out of his way to
> find them.
You should know.
> > but right he's probably busy pigging out
> >on turkey and drinking scotch.
> >
> Probably.
You ought to do likewise. Your talents would probably be better spent
elsewhere, you're not good at this.
Dutch
I did refute it, in plain language. You snipped it.
>
> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
> >he already has it.
> >
> What you've just done is successfully defend
> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
Fuck off with the numbers, my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
END>
Rubystars
news:vsf1b6f...@news.supernews.com...
Let me get this straight. You both disagree with dh_ld. And you're arguing
with each other about exactly how you disagree with him? Hilarious. :)
-Rubystars
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:q3iesv85jqjq6rak2...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> 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."
>You're attacking me
Stop snivelling and learn to live with it.
>> >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.
>> >> 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
and you replied, "It's self-evident." I don't see
that it is, so you'll have to explain. Ask Harrison
if you get stuck.
>> > Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing
>> >
>> Then explain how they benefit;
>> 1) from living
>> 2) from producing
>
>It's self-evident.
>
Then it should be very easy for you to explain.
Why don't you?
>> >*without constant fear of attacks from predators*.
>> >The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit,
>>
>> 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."
> [ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]
>His argument is that being born is a
>benefit to the animal being born.
>
He argues that as well, yes.
>> >and that therefore
>> >never having a chance to be born is a loss.
>> >
>> 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."
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
Is that your only response, especially after being
revealed as such a hypocrite? Why have you gone
after him all this time if you also think that the
benefits he's been talking of are "self-evident"?
Well, Dutch?
>> 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 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!
>> >> 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.
>> >> 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.
>
>> >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.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:ktuesvsj33f6l95jn...@4ax.com...
If you contend (in this thread) that life is
not a benefit, then you aren't refuting my
conclusion. You are agreeing with it.
(3) life is not a benefit.
However since you've been arguing that
life is a benefit in another thread to this, it's
quite probable you're confused.
>>
>> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>> >he already has it.
>> >
>> What you've just done is successfully defend
>> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
>> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
>
>Fuck off with the numbers,
Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
chump.
>my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
>END>
>
It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
yet. Buckle up...
Dutch
news:hELxb.2683$cQ7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.
ipse dixit
>"Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:hELxb.2683$cQ7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Let me get this straight. You both disagree with dh_ld. And you're arguing
>> with each other about exactly how you disagree with him? Hilarious. :)
>
It does get better. Honest.
>Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.
>
"Thanks for your post Derek. That's the best response I've gotten so far. :)
I can tell you're being honest due to the fact that you used the reference
and you admitted that most animals don't suffer that much."
Rubystars Date: 2002-02-24
Dutch
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:q3iesv85jqjq6rak2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> 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.
> >You're attacking me
>
> Stop snivelling and learn to live with it.
Stop snipping unethically, if you can.
> >> >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.
It's very very simple.
> >> >> 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.
> and you replied, "It's self-evident." I don't see
> that it is, so you'll have to explain. Ask Harrison
> if you get stuck.
I just did. You get, you just don't want to admit it, because you're
pursuing a game and because you're an idiot.
> >> > Animals DO benefit from living and reproducing
> >> >
> >> Then explain how they benefit;
> >> 1) from living
> >> 2) from producing
> >
> >It's self-evident.
> >
> Then it should be very easy for you to explain.
> Why don't you?
I did.
> >> >*without constant fear of attacks from predators*.
> >> >The fuckwit argument is that *life itself* is a benefit,
> >>
> >> 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.
> > [ipse dixit]
> > Then explain how they benefit;
> > 1) from living
> > 2) from producing
> [Dutch]
> It's self-evident
> [end]
>
> >His argument is that being born is a
> >benefit to the animal being born.
> >
> He argues that as well, yes.
>
> >> >and that therefore
> >> >never having a chance to be born is a loss.
> >> >
> >> 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.
My patience is wearing thin.
> 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.
blah blah blah
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.
It's self-evident, you're an idiot.
> >> 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. Quit wasting my time.
>
> >> >> 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. If you
read the following sentences in that paragraph it's obvious. To confirm
that, note that I actually *never said it was a moral consideration issue.*
It's so predictable that you would pick up a typo and exploit it. What a
fucking creep you are.
> >> >> 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.
> >> >> 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. another strawman.
You're a time-waster Dreck.
> >
> >> >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 because you began with a false
premiss then you pursued it with strawman arguments.
It's over now, as always, you made a fool of yourself and you don't even
know it.
Rubystars
Did I say something in 2002 you have a problem with? And why is it relevant
now?
Dutch
I refuted fuckwit's argument you idiot!
> However since you've been arguing that
> life is a benefit in another thread to this, it's
> quite probable you're confused.
No I argued that having predators removed is a benefit to deer populations.
You never disputed that, you just made up strawmen.
> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
> >> >he already has it.
> >> >
> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
> >
> >Fuck off with the numbers,
>
> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
> chump.
>
> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
> >END>
> >
> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
> yet. Buckle up...
How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments. You're a hopeless
mess.
Dutch
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:05:59 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:hELxb.2683$cQ7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> Let me get this straight. You both disagree with dh_ld. And you're
arguing
> >> with each other about exactly how you disagree with him? Hilarious. :)
> >
> It does get better. Honest.
It never gets better than that with you. You make stupid half-witted
arguments, you argue in circles, pummel strawmen, you lie, snip unethically
and basically you're a festering sore on the newsgroup.
> >Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.
> >
> "Thanks for your post Derek. That's the best response I've gotten so far.
:)
> I can tell you're being honest due to the fact that you used the reference
> and you admitted that most animals don't suffer that much."
> Rubystars Date: 2002-02-24
I doubt very much that she feels that way now. You're just an unethical
manipulator of words Derek, you don't engage in an exchange of ideas in any
meaningful constructive manner. What's even more disgusting, you're proud of
it.
ipse dixit
Your above response to Derek back in 2002 was to
show Dutch he was wasting his time in trying to ruin
your opinion of Derek's honesty and good name.
>And why is it relevant now?
>
That'd be telling.
Dutch
[..]
> Did I say something in 2002 you have a problem with? And why is it
relevant
> now?
Reasoning with Derek is like trying to teach your dog algebra.
Rubystars
Ok.
> >And why is it relevant now?
> >
> That'd be telling.
lol
-Rubystars
Rubystars
I'm sorry I got into this thread. I just thought it was funny for both of
you to be saying "I disagree with fuckwit, you fuckwit" "I disagree with
fuckwit too, fuckwit"
lol
-Rubystars
Rubystars
I have no real opinion about most people here. I don't think any of the ARAs
are people I agree with, and I disagree with most of the "antis" a lot of
times too.
-Rubystars
Dutch
> Your above response to Derek back in 2002 was to
> show Dutch he was wasting his time in trying to ruin
> your opinion of Derek's honesty and good name.
You don't have a good name to ruin Dreck, your name is mud.
And quit referring to yourself in the third person, shit-for-brains,
usual suspect
>>>>Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.
This is true.
>>>"Thanks for your post Derek. That's the best response
>>>I've gotten so far. :)
>>>I can tell you're being honest due to the fact that you
>>>used the reference and you admitted that most animals
>>>don't suffer that much."
>>>Rubystars Date: 2002-02-24
>>
>>Did I say something in 2002 you have a problem with?
>
> Your above response to Derek
Why are you writing in third-person, Dreck?
> back in 2002 was to
> show Dutch he was wasting his time in trying to ruin
> your opinion of Derek's honesty and good name.
Why are you writing in third-person, bluefoot? You have no honesty, and
your name has come to mean nothing.
>>And why is it relevant now?
>
> That'd be telling.
On yourself, you fat, crippled, dole-scrounging schmuck?
You have just proved you know Belinda is still with
me.
-- Dreck (as "Ipse Dreck") http://tinyurl.com/w6u8
That longsuffering woman had NO idea what life would be like with you 20
years down the road. You've been pretending to be a man your whole life,
haven't you.
Dutch
It never makes much sense arguing with fuckwits, dh or Dreck, but it just
seems like the right thing do sometimes, fighting the good fight against
ignorance.
ipse dixit
>ipse Dreck wrote:
>>>>>Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.
>
>This is true.
>
>>>>"Thanks for your post Derek. That's the best response
>>>>I've gotten so far. :)
>>>>I can tell you're being honest due to the fact that you
>>>>used the reference and you admitted that most animals
>>>>don't suffer that much."
>>>>Rubystars Date: 2002-02-24
>>>
>>>Did I say something in 2002 you have a problem with?
>>
>> Your above response to Derek
>
>Why are you writing in third-person, Dreck?
>
"I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself."
Ipse dixit 2003-11-09
Dutch
Why not? The people here certainly warrant strong opinions about them.
> I don't think any of the ARAs
> are people I agree with, and I disagree with most of the "antis" a lot of
> times too.
Disagreeing with opinions isn't the issue. A person's character is revealed
in the kind of arguments they use to defend their opinions. Derek uses
irrational logic that he doesn't understand, he constantly snips responses
to change the meaning of them. He uses the broken record technique, never
listens to reason except as a temporary pose to engratiate himself to
someone. He hides behind nym-shifting, the list goes on and on.
How can you not have an opinion about his character?
ipse dixit
"I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself."
Ipse dixit 2003-11-9
Rubystars
> > I have no real opinion about most people here.
>
> Why not? The people here certainly warrant strong opinions about them.
I haven't been here very long. I've seen some stupid postings, and I've made
a lot of my own views clear in regards to my opposition to terrorism, etc.
So if someone's supporting ARA terrorism you can assume that they're a
scumbag.
I said I don't have an opinion about most people here because I haven't been
reading that long.
> > I don't think any of the ARAs
> > are people I agree with, and I disagree with most of the "antis" a lot
of
> > times too.
>
> Disagreeing with opinions isn't the issue. A person's character is
revealed
> in the kind of arguments they use to defend their opinions.
At this point I'm less interested in the personalities behind the claims
being made than I am in the claims and issues themselves.
>Derek uses
> irrational logic that he doesn't understand, he constantly snips responses
> to change the meaning of them. He uses the broken record technique, never
> listens to reason except as a temporary pose to engratiate himself to
> someone. He hides behind nym-shifting, the list goes on and on.
>
> How can you not have an opinion about his character?
Well I can't even tell which poster you're referring to as "Derek." Is it
Ipse Dixit? Someone else? The multiple names being used by people in here is
confusing. How am I supposed to form an opinion of individuals if they all
use three or four names?
-Rubystars
Dutch
"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> I'll always have that last laugh, whoever I am.
..said the raving psychotic
usual suspect
<snip>
> Well I can't even tell which poster you're referring to as "Derek." Is it
> Ipse Dixit?
Yes. Dreck's latest fantasy is that he's borrowing someone else's
pseudonym and account on occasion. Mind you, in the last couple months
he's also pretended to be his child AND his wife. He's quite a disturbed
a person.
<snip>
Rubystars
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
news:xbTxb.68244$Vs1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
Not only all of that, but also most of the ARAs get labeled with a nickname:
Dreck, fuckwit, etc. And you guys expect me to actually care enough to keep
up with all these people and pseudo-people?
That's why I try to mostly do this one post at a time rather than worrying
about who's posting or how I happen to feel about them (if I have an
opinion).
-Rubystars
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:0j1fsvsj596srk70d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:q3iesv85jqjq6rak2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> 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.
>
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
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 ...
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:kf6fsvg2qb95b60lh...@4ax.com...
You have in this thread, as I've pointed out
already, so you are in fact agreeing with the
conclusion, (3) life is not a benefit.
>> However since you've been arguing that
>> life is a benefit in another thread to this, it's
>> quite probable you're confused.
>
>No
Yes.
>
>> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>> >> >he already has it.
>> >> >
>> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
>> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
>> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
>> >
>> >Fuck off with the numbers,
>>
>> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
>> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
>> chump.
>
Well, chump?
>>
>> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
>> >END>
>> >
>> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
>> yet. Buckle up...
>
>How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments.
Taking the flesh away from an argument and
putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.
He claims that life is a benefit, and his quotes
here prove that he holds that belief. He also
believes animals experience a loss if their lives
are prevented.
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
.
Put the two together and you have his first
premise:
1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
( if x, then y)
The second premise is mine and beyond doubt,
although he is still perfectly entitled to challenge it;
2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born.
( not y )
The logical conclusion from these premises is
(3) Life is not a benefit.
( not x)
This syllogism is in the form
Premise 1) if x then y
Premise 2) not y
therefore
Conclusion 3) not x
If Harrison wants to argue (3) is false, that life
is a benefit, then he must also challenge one of
the two premises as well since the conclusion
logically follows from (1) and (2). He cannot
challenge (2) since we need to be alive in order
to experience something, so he must challenge
his own premise (1) instead. That's the beauty
of deductive logic: it forces your opponent to
attack his own premise if he wants to prove
your conclusion to his hogwash is wrong.
>You're a hopeless mess.
>
You're thick.
usual suspect
>>>Well I can't even tell which poster you're referring to as "Derek." Is
> it
>>>Ipse Dixit?
>>
>>Yes. Dreck's latest fantasy is that he's borrowing someone else's
>>pseudonym and account on occasion. Mind you, in the last couple months
>>he's also pretended to be his child AND his wife. He's quite a disturbed
>>a person.
>
> Not only all of that, but also most of the ARAs get labeled with a nickname:
> Dreck, fuckwit, etc. And you guys expect me to actually care enough to keep
> up with all these people and pseudo-people?
Fuckwit isn't an ARA. He's just a... well, a fuckwit. So is Dreck, lol.
> That's why I try to mostly do this one post at a time rather than worrying
> about who's posting or how I happen to feel about them (if I have an
> opinion).
Who cares about how you "feel" about people? I think it helps to know
the target of your reply, especially if it's someone of cheesy character
like Dreck.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:24:54 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >> >Wild populations benefit from removal of predators. If ARAs were
>> >successful
>> >> >in immediately ending all meat consumption (removing man as a
>predator)
>> >>
>> >> As a predator and as...?
>> >
>> >That's essentially what we are, except that unlike a predator in nature,
>for
>> >our own convenience we keep the animals confined and orchestrate their
>> >breeding.
>>
>> We provide life--some good and some bad--for billions of animals.
>
>No, we most emphatically do not "provide life", such a thing is beyond the
>scope of human abilities. We skillfully arrange circumstances in such a
>fashion that life happens in a way that benefits us. Never at any time have
>we ever been able to provide or create
There is a big difference between provide and create imo. If you don't
understand that we do provide life for billions of animals, then what's the
point in trying to discuss any more detail?
> life. That is simply a falsehood that
>you use as a rationalization.
>
>> >> >then
>> >> >existing broiler chickens would benefit, because they would get to
>live
>> >> >longer, probably under improved conditions.
>> >>
>> >> Right. Not! What makes any of you think "AR" would provide
>> >> something like that for chickens, when your heros at PeTA don't
>> >> do that with the unwanted pets they get their hands on?
>> >
>> >I don't really know, maybe they wouldn't.
>>
>> There's no reason to believe "AR" would provide longer, or any, life
>for
>> livestock.
>
>Sure there are, there are plenty of reasons to believe it.
Such as? I don't expect you to provide any btw, much less plenty.
>I still don't
>know to what extent it would happen, neither do you.
I don't know, but my impression may be closer to the truth than yours.
And it might be closer than some of the people who send them donations too.
>> >> >Yet, "being born" is not a
>> >> >"benefit" for broiler chickens. Are you confused? Nobody with half a
>> >brain
>> >> >is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Harrison has an excuse, he's just thick,
>> >>
>> >> All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>> >> alive.
>> >
>> >It can't, that's the point. Life itself isn't a benefit because an animal
>> >has to first exist before it can receive a benefit. Deer receive a
>benefit
>> >when we control predators, they have a huge stressor removed from their
>> >lives.
>> >
>> >> If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>> >> that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>> >
>> >"something that doesn't have a life" is just another way of saying
>something
>> >that doesn't exist,
>>
>> You really haven't given this much thought apparently.
>
>I've given it sufficient thought.
>
>> You see the letters
>> in this sentence? You are seeing them with a monitor, which according to
>you
>> is "something that doesn't have a life" so it doesn't exist. We don't
>agree
>> about that btw.
>
>You are muddled, the "somethings" we are talking about are *animals*, not
>rocks, not computers.
I'm talking about more things than you are Dutch. Apparently you have
limitted what your talking about to nothing. You have limitted it to the concept
of potential future animals who have not yet been conceived, but mine includes
everything which is not alive including rocks...and things which have been
alive but are no longer.
>Inanimate objects cannot "benefit",
Right. They must have the benefit which makes all others possible.
>non-existent
>things cannot benefit.
>*Animals* don't exist *until they have life*, therefore life itself cannot
>logically be a benefit.
Apparently it's the benefit which makes all others possible. Try this for what
should be a simple example: a sperm makes it to an egg, it does whatever it
is exactly that a sperm is supposed to do to an egg, for some reason life does
not begin. Without life the gob of goo can not benefit, but *with* life billions of
them benefit all the time... I'm sure you can't believe it, but it is happening all
around you every second of every day, has been since long before you came
along, and hopefully will be long after you can't benefit any more yourself.
>> >since by their nature, animals have life as soon as they
>> >come into existence. So you intend to show that something non-existent
>>
>> This is probably more detail than you're going to be able to deal
>with, but
>> the material we're composed of doesn't just poof into existence. Much of
>it
>> has been around for billions of years. Some of it has composed other
>animals
>> ....some of that has composed previous generations of stars.... So what
>> exactly does it take in order for something to benefit?
>
>Animals must exist
Have life.
>as animals
What if they exist as a plant...can a plant benefit?
>before they can receive a benefit (or harm).
>
>> Life for one thing, there
>> is no question about that, even though you can't bring yourself to face
>such
>> a harsh and terrifying (for you, for some reason) cruel reality. Since you
>can't
>> bring yourself to accept that most simple and basic first observation,
>trying to
>> consider exactly what it is that *can* benefit is going to be a challenge
>you're
>> not prepared to take on. But if you want to give it a go anyway: Can your
>> hand benefit? Can your leg?
>
>If it were broken it would benefit from a cast.
If you want to be specific about it, I don't agree.
>>Those things are in some sense "alive", but I
>> wouldn't say that they could benefit. How about your head...can that
>benefit?
>
>Of course, yours could benefit from an examination.
>
>> Maybe, since it can detect the things it experiences. Can your eyes? Your
>> mouth? I'd say no, they just carry the info into the brain where whatever
>it
>> is that can benefit resides, as far as we know. Can your brain benefit?
>
>Yours could, from a transplant.
Too hard a question for you to even take a stab at.
> Or
>> do we have to go deeper than that in order to determine exactly what it is
>> that's capable of benefitting?
>
>You're hopeless.
Well, I must admit I expected somewhat more than that from you. You
do continue to disapoint me about stuff like that. When it comes down to
details you're just lost before we even get started.
>> >can
>> >benefit, go ahead.
>>
>> You're the one who needs to show how something that's not alive can
>> benefit, in order to show that life's not the benefit needed to make all
>others
>> possible. Take the simplest example and explain how a dead animal can
>> benefit. If you can't do that, we are left with the horrible (to you for
>some
>> reason) realization that life is the benefit which makes all others
>possible.
>
>Life itself isn't a benefit, the idea is just semantically illogical.
>
>So much for the idea that I'm making your argument for you.
>
dh...@nomail.com
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:14:43 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:m6sbsvg32t3jrpn4u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> > All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>>> >alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>>> >that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>>> >
>>> 1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
>>> 2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>>> therefore
>>> 3) life is not a benefit
>>> or in contradiction to (3)
>>> 4) life is a benefit
>>>
>>> If (1) and (4) are true, we experienced a loss prior to
>>> being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we
>>> cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2),
>>> and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot
>>> all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false,
>>> meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original
>>> conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid
>>> conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3)
>>> you must also find a fault in one of the premises.
>>
>>You call that convoluted mess logic?
>
>It's miles beyond your capabilities to understand
>and a whole light year beyond your capabilities to
>produce anything similar in refutation to Harrison's
>argument, which is why you've had to rely on Jon's
>lead all this time,
Gonad relys on insisting that nothing has ever
benefitted from anything, unless it's capable of
understanding the concept of benefit. It's as bad
as the false equation that you invented.
>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>not a benefit.
It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
absurd insistance that in order for something to be
a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
prior to obtaining it.
>Try to offer a valid argument against
>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>it's wrong without being able to say why?
If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
will be able to say why, because it is a benefit. You
can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
If you broke down and accepted the fact, maybe you
could move on with it to something worthwhile. But
there isn't much hope of that in these news groups
now is there? No. But at least you veg*ns and your
opponents seem to be on common ground about it. It
appears as though you may not want to be though,
and why is that?
dh...@nomail.com
>I wonder if dh_ld thinks that unicorns and dragons and faeries have
>experienced a loss because they never got to exist and "experience life."
>
>Also, does Santa Claus experience a loss?
>
>I'd appreciate an answer.
>
>If so, why, and if not, how are they any different from other beings that
>don't exist?
>
>-Rubystars
See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
about it a little farther:
_________________________________________________________
From: dh...@nomail.com
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: David Harrison believes that animals exist before they are conceived
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:18:57 GMT
Message-ID: <3bf30713....@news.mindspring.com>
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
>David believes it is morally wrong to "prevent" animals
>from being born. They have to exist in order to be
>"prevented" from doing anything. Hence, he believes
>they exist, before they are born.
here's something i wrote as one of the stock answers
that you don't like jonathan, but i still believe the same
way. i checked the document properties, and it was
Created: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 7:20:07 PM
it is how i've felt about this issue for as long as i can
remember...as if anyone really cares:
· If there is anything more than this life on Earth for
us, then there must be some type of "self" for each
of us that is not dependant on our body to maintain
its existence. For convenience, I will refer to this
hypothetical "self" as a "soul". Since it is not known
whether this "soul" actually exists or not, imo there
are three possibilities:
1) There is no soul--if that is the case, the *individual*
animals are totally dependant on the particular sperm
and egg that unite, for their life and individuality. If
humans stop controlling the breeding of animals, all
of the individuals that would have been born if we had
continued will instead never have that experience
regardless of how many animals are born wild, since
they are unrelated groups.
2) The soul is created at some point in the development
of the individual being--if that is the case, what I said
in the previous example is also true in this case imo.
3) The soul is created separate from the body it will
reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost certain
that if people stop raising animals for food, the souls
that would have resided in the food animals, will be born
to other bodies instead. If this is indeed the case, maybe
the animals that are being raised and eaten by humans
are providing the life experiences for souls that would
have otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
have destroyed. ·
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Jonathan Ball
>>*Animals* don't exist *until they have life*, therefore life itself cannot
>>logically be a benefit.
>
>
> Apparently it's the benefit which makes all others possible.
Life per se is not a benefit. It is logically absurd
to think that it could be.
Jonathan Ball
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:14:54 GMT, ipse dixit <nos...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:14:43 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>If (1) and (4) are true, we experienced a loss prior to
>>>>being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we
>>>>cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2),
>>>>and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot
>>>>all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false,
>>>>meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original
>>>>conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid
>>>>conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3)
>>>>you must also find a fault in one of the premises.
>>>
>>>You call that convoluted mess logic?
>>
>>It's miles beyond your capabilities to understand
>>and a whole light year beyond your capabilities to
>>produce anything similar in refutation to Harrison's
>>argument, which is why you've had to rely on Jon's
>>lead all this time,
>
>
> Ball relys on insisting that nothing has ever
> benefitted from anything,
That's a lie, Fuckwit.
I point out that life per se *cannot* be a benefit.
>
>>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>>not a benefit.
>
>
> It is not.
It is. It is valid deductive logic that shows WHY life
per se cannot be a benefit.
> It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
> absurd insistance that in order for something to be
> a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
> prior to obtaining it.
No, that's completely false. The argument doesn't
contain a thing like that.
>
>
>>Try to offer a valid argument against
>>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>>it's wrong without being able to say why?
>
>
> If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
> will be able to say why,
No. You are wrong. We *have* said why.
> because it is a benefit.
No. Life is NOT a benefit, and it has been
conclusively explained why it *cannot* be one.
Rubystars
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
> about it a little farther:
Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
That shouldn't come as any surprise. Fuckwit is an
extremely inarticulate, uneducated goof. You may think
I'm merely being insulting, but I'm not. I mean, I am
being insulting, but I'm not *merely* being insulting;
Fuckwit really is extremely inarticulate, and
uneducated. I am quite certain he's a high school
drop-out.
Fuckwit has bred both fighting cocks and fighting dogs;
he has actively participated in cockfighting and
dogfighting, not just as a supplier but as a handler.
He believes that *any* use of animals by humans is
acceptable.
ipse dixit
Are you suggesting Jonathan is relying on something
I invented?
>>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>>not a benefit.
>
> It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
>absurd insistance that in order for something to be
>a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
>prior to obtaining it.
>
If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
no life is a loss. I have your own quotes which
prove you believe it, too.
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
>>Try to offer a valid argument against
>>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>>it's wrong without being able to say why?
>
> If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
>will be able to say why, because it is a benefit.
It's logically certain that life isn't a benefit, but
like Dutch who also believes the same as you
do, you can only assert that it is and answer
that it is "self-evident" when asked to explain
your reasoning.
> You can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
I've supported my argument to logically prove
life isn't a benefit. What proof are you going to
offer that will prove it is a benefit?
>If you broke down and accepted the fact
"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach
your absurd conclusion?
> maybe you
>could move on with it to something worthwhile. But
>there isn't much hope of that in these news groups
>now is there? No. But at least you veg*ns and your
>opponents seem to be on common ground about it. It
>appears as though you may not want to be though,
>and why is that?
A?
Rubystars
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:w%4yb.21641$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> >
> >> See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
> >>about it a little farther:
> >
> >
> > Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>
> That shouldn't come as any surprise. Fuckwit is an
> extremely inarticulate, uneducated goof. You may think
> I'm merely being insulting, but I'm not. I mean, I am
> being insulting, but I'm not *merely* being insulting;
> Fuckwit really is extremely inarticulate, and
> uneducated. I am quite certain he's a high school
> drop-out.
I still can't quite seem to understand how beings that don't exist have any
right to be conceived. I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now. If I smash a female
with an egg case on her behind and smash that too, does that mean I've
deprived those roaches a hundred generations from now of the right to
experience life?
> Fuckwit has bred both fighting cocks and fighting dogs;
> he has actively participated in cockfighting and
> dogfighting, not just as a supplier but as a handler.
> He believes that *any* use of animals by humans is
> acceptable.
Those who participate in dog fights and cock fights are scum and should be
in prison.
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:w%4yb.21641$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
>>>>about it a little farther:
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>>
>>That shouldn't come as any surprise. Fuckwit is an
>>extremely inarticulate, uneducated goof. You may think
>>I'm merely being insulting, but I'm not. I mean, I am
>>being insulting, but I'm not *merely* being insulting;
>>Fuckwit really is extremely inarticulate, and
>>uneducated. I am quite certain he's a high school
>>drop-out.
>
>
> I still can't quite seem to understand how beings that don't exist have any
> right to be conceived.
Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
from what he does say.
> I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
> cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
them.
> If I smash a female
> with an egg case on her behind and smash that too, does that mean I've
> deprived those roaches a hundred generations from now of the right to
> experience life?
Yes, but because humans don't intend for roaches to
live, you haven't done anything wrong in Fuckwit's
weird view. On the other hand, if you were to persuade
all humans to stop eating meat, so that farm animals
were to go extinct, Fuckwit would have to believe that
you have done a great evil to "future farm animals":
you would have "deprive[d] them of having what life
they could have?" The full quote is:
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
Fuckwit is an irrational loon.
Jonathan Ball
Rubystars
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
> conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
> from what he does say.
Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
with him.
> > I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
> > cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
>
> Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
> humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
> today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
> exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
> belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
> thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
> them.
Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
death for them?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > If I smash a female
> > with an egg case on her behind and smash that too, does that mean I've
> > deprived those roaches a hundred generations from now of the right to
> > experience life?
>
> Yes, but because humans don't intend for roaches to
> live, you haven't done anything wrong in Fuckwit's
> weird view.
Ok.
>On the other hand, if you were to persuade
> all humans to stop eating meat, so that farm animals
> were to go extinct, Fuckwit would have to believe that
> you have done a great evil to "future farm animals":
> you would have "deprive[d] them of having what life
> they could have?"
I don't have a lot of empathy for animals that don't even exist yet. I mean,
let's say everyone was a vegetarian, and animals weren't being bred for meat
anymore. So there would be a lot fewer cows, chickens, and pigs, as well as
other animals. I still don't see what the problem is. If an animal hasn't
been conceived yet, then it effectively doesn't exist. How can something
that doesn't exist be deprived of something?
Here's something that involves human intent. My grandmother came from a
family where she had several brothers, like about 7 or 8 of them. I only
have one sister and no other siblings. So, according to dh_ld, would my
parents have denied the other potential kids "the right to experience life"
because they were never conceived?
(Feel free to speak for yourself, dh_ld)
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>>conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>>from what he does say.
>
>
> Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
> with him.
Nothing worthwhile. He's a little more out there than
most usenet loons.
>
>
>>>I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
>>>cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
>>
>>Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
>>humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
>>today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
>>exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
>>belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
>>thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
>>them.
>
>
> Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
> death for them?
Yes, focusing peculiarly on the "provides life" bit of
nonsense.
> That doesn't make a lot of sense.
It doesn't make ANY sense, to rational people. He
offers the bit of nonsense about "providing life" as
some kind of moral counterweight to the fact that the
animals are killed. Of course, it doesn't provide any
counterweight at all, being morally empty, hence
weightless.
>
>
>>>If I smash a female
>>>with an egg case on her behind and smash that too, does that mean I've
>>>deprived those roaches a hundred generations from now of the right to
>>>experience life?
>>
>>Yes, but because humans don't intend for roaches to
>>live, you haven't done anything wrong in Fuckwit's
>>weird view.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>On the other hand, if you were to persuade
>>all humans to stop eating meat, so that farm animals
>>were to go extinct, Fuckwit would have to believe that
>>you have done a great evil to "future farm animals":
>>you would have "deprive[d] them of having what life
>>they could have?"
>
>
> I don't have a lot of empathy for animals that don't even exist yet.
Good. That's evidence that you're sane.
I suppose it's necessary to talk about abstract animals
that don't exist, e.g., "future farm animals" in the
vague, amorphous sense Fuckwit uses the word. However,
if we acknowledge that in five years, there will be
billions of animals who haven't even been conceived
today; in fact, the 'grandparents' and even
'great-grandparents' of the animals that will exist
five years from now are not yet born themselves. But,
acknowledging that farm animals will exist in five
years, it makes perfect sense to be concerned, today,
about the conditions in which those animals will live
in five years, ten years, and so on. That isn't the
same as having "empathy" for them; it's being prepared
to act on proper animal welfare concerns in the future.
Having said that, wanting to see proper animal welfare
provisions in the future does NOT mean that the animals
"ought" to exist in the future. Fuckwit, irrational
loon, thinks it *does* mean they ought to exist.
> I mean,
> let's say everyone was a vegetarian, and animals weren't being bred for meat
> anymore. So there would be a lot fewer cows, chickens, and pigs, as well as
> other animals. I still don't see what the problem is.
Nor does anyone else. Fuckwit is all alone in this
weird, irrational concern.
> If an animal hasn't
> been conceived yet, then it effectively doesn't exist. How can something
> that doesn't exist be deprived of something?
That's how you look at it, and how I look at it, and
how any sane, thinking person looks at it. It isn't
how Fuckwit looks at it.
>
> Here's something that involves human intent. My grandmother came from a
> family where she had several brothers, like about 7 or 8 of them. I only
> have one sister and no other siblings. So, according to dh_ld, would my
> parents have denied the other potential kids "the right to experience life"
> because they were never conceived?
>
> (Feel free to speak for yourself, dh_ld)
Fuckwit tries to wriggle out of questions like that by
claiming, disingenuously, that farm animals are a
different class of animals, so the issues don't apply.
ipse dixit
>
>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:w%4yb.21641$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Rubystars wrote:
>> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
>> >>about it a little farther:
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>>
>> That shouldn't come as any surprise. Fuckwit is an
>> extremely inarticulate, uneducated goof. You may think
>> I'm merely being insulting, but I'm not. I mean, I am
>> being insulting, but I'm not *merely* being insulting;
>> Fuckwit really is extremely inarticulate, and
>> uneducated. I am quite certain he's a high school
>> drop-out.
>
>I still can't quite seem to understand how beings that don't
>exist have any right to be conceived.
He wants ARAs to view future unborn farm animals
as rights holders, and that they are being "unfair" in
wanting to prevent them from being born.
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
David Harrison - 10/19/1999
And this statement ( below ) insists that my human
rights don't trump the rights of unborn farm animals.
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life
they could have?
David Harrison - 10/12/2001
He probably believes the Universe suffered a loss
prior to the big bang, too. I'm sure he does, and to
prove it I'll drag a full confession of this belief out
of him by the end of next week.
Dutch
Dutch
No
> >
> >> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
> >> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
> >> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
> >> >> >he already has it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
> >> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
> >> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
> >> >
> >> >Fuck off with the numbers,
> >>
> >> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
> >> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
> >> chump.
> >
> Well, chump?
Fuck off.
> >>
> >> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
> >> >END>
> >> >
> >> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
> >> yet. Buckle up...
> >
> >How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments.
>
> Taking the flesh away from an argument and
> putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
> for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.
Your "syllogism" is a convoluted mess designed to make you look intelligent.
It has no other purpose.
He'll just equivocate and obfuscate. Formal syllogisms are useless, plain
english is all that's necessary here.
>
> >You're a hopeless mess.
> >
> You're thick.
Let's just see how your approach works.
dh...@nomail.com
Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the issue.
Jonathan Ball
Rubystars
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that doesn't
exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.
-Rubystars
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:ci0hsvcdjf0livrmj...@4ax.com...
I'm glad to see it's sunk in at last.
>> >> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>> >> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>> >> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>> >> >> >he already has it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
>> >> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
>> >> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fuck off with the numbers,
>> >>
>> >> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
>> >> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
>> >> chump.
>> >
>> Well, chump?
>
>Fuck off.
>
Try making me, chump, instead of just cutting
out and running for the door.
>> >>
>> >> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
>> >> >END>
>> >> >
>> >> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
>> >> yet. Buckle up...
>> >
>> >How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments.
>>
>> Taking the flesh away from an argument and
>> putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
>> for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.
>
>Your "syllogism" is a convoluted mess designed to
> make you look intelligent.
My syllogism, according to Jonathan, "is valid
deductive logic that shows WHY life per se
cannot be a benefit." Is he wrong yet again?
That'd make three errors in a row this week.
Priceless!
>It has no other purpose.
>
Don't blame anyone but yourself for your
ignorance on deductive logic, Dutch. It's
an excellent tool.
Good. So what? Let him run around a bit and
enjoy himself.
>Formal syllogisms are useless, plain
>english is all that's necessary here.
>
You haven't got very far with it.
>>
>> >You're a hopeless mess.
>> >
>> You're thick.
>
>Let's just see how your approach works.
>
It worked perfectly. The only valid way he
can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
That should keep him suitably confused for
a while.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
>
>Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
>
This is about the third snip and run you've
tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
the same in other threads. What's the matter
with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
something?
<unsnip>
Way to go ...
<end>
dh...@nomail.com
>
>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
><snip>
>> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>> conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>> from what he does say.
>
>Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
>with him.
It's easy enough. I realize that some farm animals benefit from being farmed
and some don't. Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do. It
certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other people in
these ngs appear unaware of. You can tell me they don't exist, but I can see
animals benefitting from farming every day, so I know you're wrong.
>> > I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
>> > cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
>>
>> Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
>> humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
>> today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
>> exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
>> belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
>> thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
>> them.
>
>Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
>death for them?
I say it because it does. You can say it doesn't, but it still does none
the less.
I don't believe nothing can suffer a loss, or be deprived of anything. I
explained how I feel about the issue already, and if you can provide some
other possibilities to consider, then I'd be more than interested in what they
are. If what I explained is giberish to you, but you can't provide any other
possibilities, then it doesn't seem like we can share any ideas. You don't
like mine, but have nothing equal much less better to offer.
dh...@nomail.com
What would make you think I suggest that?
>>>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>>>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>>>not a benefit.
>>
>> It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
>>absurd insistance that in order for something to be
>>a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
>>prior to obtaining it.
>>
>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>no life is a loss.
Why do you think that: If getting a million dollars is a
benefit, then it's logically certain that not getting a million
dollars is a loss?
>I have your own quotes which
>prove you believe it, too.
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
>
>>>Try to offer a valid argument against
>>>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>>>it's wrong without being able to say why?
>>
>> If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
>>will be able to say why, because it is a benefit.
>
>It's logically certain that life isn't a benefit, but
>like Dutch who also believes the same as you
>do, you can only assert that it is and answer
>that it is "self-evident" when asked to explain
>your reasoning.
>
>> You can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
>
>I've supported my argument to logically prove
>life isn't a benefit.
No you haven't, and you never will.
>What proof are you going to
>offer that will prove it is a benefit?
The only reason you can benefit is because you have
life. If that fact doesn't let you know life is a benefit, then
nothing can let you know. If such a simple fact is too
much for you, you should probably stick with even simpler
things to think about.
>>If you broke down and accepted the fact
>
>"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach
>your absurd conclusion?
LOL!!! Hell no. I didn't have to. I was never unable
to understand the fact, so I never had to break down
in order to accept the fact. You would have to, but
it's too late for you now, and you're not going to admit
you've been wrong. But what if you did? The Gonad
would be all over you...unless you're the Gonad posting
under a different name again. That freak posts using so
many different names, maybe half the discussions in
these ngs are just him talking to himself.
>> maybe you
>>could move on with it to something worthwhile. But
>>there isn't much hope of that in these news groups
>>now is there? No.
You veg*ns and your opponents seem to be on common
dh...@nomail.com
Agreed. That was nothing. Please share any superior beliefs that
you have about the issue...but by now it's already apparent that you
have none.
Rubystars
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:i02ksv8pfrkvikksp...@4ax.com...
Ok, I'm of the opinion that there would be no loss to any animals if fewer
animals were bred for meat eating or other use. There would be fewer animals
alive, but no animals that experienced a loss as a result of that lower
number.
A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight, or a chicken
that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good thing
for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
animal that does not exist can not suffer.
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
One way or another, Fuckwit thinks that those who would
work to ensure that non-existent but *intended* beings
remain non-existent - that is, those who would thwart
someone else's intent - are doing great evil.
Interestingly in Fuckwit's weird, irrational world,
though, the great evil is not done to those whose
intention is thwarted, but rather is done to the beings
who won't be brought into existence.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>><snip>
>>
>>>Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>>>conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>>>from what he does say.
>>
>>Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
>>with him.
>
>
> It's easy enough.
It sure is. I never had any difficulty at all in
showing that you believe weird, irrational,
contradictory bullshit.
> I realize that some farm animals benefit from being farmed
> and some don't.
No, you don't. You *claim* that some animals "benefit
from being farmed", and you are wrong. No animal
"benefits" from being farmed. It's a complete absurdity.
> Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do.
No, Fuckwit. People who can think realize that NO
animal "benefits" from being farmed.
> It certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other people in
> these ngs appear unaware of.
No one cares if you feel inferior. You ARE inferior,
because you think absurd, irrational thoughts, and
falsely believe that they describe reality. They do not.
>>>>I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
>>>>cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
>>>
>>>Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
>>>humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
>>>today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
>>>exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
>>>belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
>>>thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
>>>them.
>>
>>Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
>>death for them?
>
>
> I say it because it does.
It is a trivial truth. It has no moral meaning, and
the topic being discussed, whether you like it or not,
is morality. Your observation that raising farm
animals to be consumed by humans "provides life" to
those animals is meaningless and worthless in a
discussion about ethics and morality.
> You can say it doesn't, but it still does none the less.
It's meaningless.
You don't believe the "unborn farm animals" are
"nothing", Fuckwit. Stop lying. We have the quote
right here, to prove that Fuckwit - née David Harrison
- believes the "unborn farm animals" are SOMETHING:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
You believe, Fuckwit - irrationally - that the
unconceived, unborn farm animals are SOMETHING. You
believe they are morally considerable SOMETHINGS. You
are lying if you say otherwise.
You DO believe "they" - unconceived farm animals - can
suffer a loss:
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
Don't lie and say that that was a "mistake", Fuckwit.
It decidedly was NOT a mistaken statement of your
belief. It IS your belief. The only sense in which it
was a "mistake" is that it revealed, undeniably, that
you believe weird, stupid, irrational bullshit.
> or be deprived of anything.
You're lying again, Fuckwit. You DO believe "they" -
unconceived farm animals - can be deprived of something:
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
That wasn't a mistake either, Fuckwit: it is a
statement of your personal beliefs.
> I explained how I feel about the issue already,
It was an irrational, incoherent, self-contradictory
explanation.
Jonathan Ball
Fuck you and "superior", Fuckwit. You are demonstrably
inferior, in every way.
Jonathan Ball
Fuckwit can't square that with his weird belief that
"vegans" would be doing great evil to unconceived farm
animals.
>
> A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight,
Fuckwit has bred and fought dogs. He believes the dogs
"benefited" from "getting to experience life".
> or a chicken
> that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good thing
> for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
> breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
> animal that does not exist can not suffer.
But those animals then would have lost out on the
"benefit" of merely "getting to experience life".
Here's another of his fuckwitted quotes:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
The emphasis given to "whatever" is Fuckwit's own.
Rubystars, I think you need to read the complete set of
Fuckwit's quotes. I'm going to repost my FAQ on
Fuckwit again; look for "FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs
(posted as needed)" in just a couple of minutes.
Dutch
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:32:33 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
[..]
> >> >> If you contend (in this thread) that life is
> >> >> not a benefit, then you aren't refuting my
> >> >> conclusion. You are agreeing with it.
> >> >> (3) life is not a benefit.
> >> >
> >> >I refuted fuckwit's argument you idiot!
> >> >
> >> You have in this thread, as I've pointed out
> >> already, so you are in fact agreeing with the
> >> conclusion, (3) life is not a benefit.
> >>
> I'm glad to see it's sunk in at last.
I've been telling fuckwit that for two years, where have you been?
> >> >> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
> >> >> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
> >> >> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
> >> >> >> >he already has it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
> >> >> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
> >> >> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fuck off with the numbers,
> >> >>
> >> >> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
> >> >> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
> >> >> chump.
> >> >
> >> Well, chump?
> >
> >Fuck off.
> >
> Try making me, chump, instead of just cutting
> out and running for the door.
I have adequately dealt with everything of substance you have presented.
It's completely rational to tell you to fuck off when you choose to make
empty, provocative statements like,
"Pick up a book and learn something about deductive logic and reasoning
before showing your ignorance, chump."
> >> >> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
> >> >> >END>
> >> >> >
> >> >> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
> >> >> yet. Buckle up...
> >> >
> >> >How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments.
> >>
> >> Taking the flesh away from an argument and
> >> putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
> >> for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.
> >
> >Your "syllogism" is a convoluted mess designed to
> > make you look intelligent.
>
> My syllogism, according to Jonathan, "is valid
> deductive logic that shows WHY life per se
> cannot be a benefit." Is he wrong yet again?
> That'd make three errors in a row this week.
> Priceless!
You don't waste much time hiding behind Jonathan do you?
> >It has no other purpose.
> >
> Don't blame anyone but yourself for your
> ignorance on deductive logic, Dutch. It's
> an excellent tool.
Using the form you used is a waste of time on fuckwit, plain english is all
that's required.
Did fuckwit accept it?
The only valid way he
> can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
> That should keep him suitably confused for
> a while.
I'll tell you right now, he will reject out of hand 1) if life is a
benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born. He'll simply re-assert
that life is a benefit, the benefit that makes all other benefits possible.
The fact is, what he really means is that life itself is a good thing, and
should be "promoted" in every way because it makes benefits possible. We've
gotten hung up on this word "benefit" when in fact it's not the basis of his
position. His argument is the most self-rationalizing form of sophistry
imaginable, that's the really disgusting part of it.
Dutch
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
> >
> >Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
> >
> This is about the third snip and run you've
> tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
> the same in other threads. What's the matter
> with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
> something?
No, you've just become extremely tiresome and repetitious. Generally you
make clearly wrong statements that are interesting to refute. Here you're
just rambling and repeating yourself.
You aren't worth that much effort.
-SNIP-
Dutch
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> ><snip>
> >> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
> >> conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
> >> from what he does say.
> >
> >Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going
on
> >with him.
>
> It's easy enough. I realize that some farm animals benefit from being
farmed
> and some don't.
What does that mean? Do you mean some are mostly contented and others are
mostly miserable?
What do you do to promote the former and discourage the latter?
> Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do.
The way you use the word "benefit" doesn't make sense.
> It
> certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other
people in
> these ngs appear unaware of. You can tell me they don't exist, but I can
see
> animals benefitting from farming every day, so I know you're wrong.
You mean you see cows grazing? So what? How do you know that their lives
amount to a net "benefit"?
> >> > I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
> >> > cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
> >>
> >> Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
> >> humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
> >> today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
> >> exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
> >> belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
> >> thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
> >> them.
> >
> >Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
> >death for them?
>
> I say it because it does. You can say it doesn't, but it still does
none
> the less.
You're only rationalizing the use of animals. The fact that livestock "get
to experience life" is not now and will never be a factor in deciding to
farm them.
The only other people who argue a point like this are extreme animal rights
utilitarians like Singer who argue that *if* animals were farmed in ideal
conditions, then their lives would constitute a net good.
Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies raising
an animal, including fighting cocks and dogs, and I presume bullfighting.
You're a bizarre cross between an animal rights extremist an animal
exploitation extremist.
dh...@nomail.com
We agree. As I've pointed out many times, there would be no more loss
than the fact that we don't raise porcupines for food, dinosaurs are extinct,
rocks aren't alive, there is no life on Venus, etc...
>A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight, or a chicken
>that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good thing
>for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
>breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
>animal that does not exist can not suffer.
>
>-Rubystars
We agree that no life is better than a life of suffering. Where we
disagree is on the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming,
not on the fact that some do not.
dh...@nomail.com
LOL! If you were capable of contemplating the possibilities I feel
sure it would be quite amusing Gonad, but you can't, much less can
you share them with others.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>> ><snip>
>> >> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>> >> conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>> >> from what he does say.
>> >
>> >Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going
>on
>> >with him.
>>
>> It's easy enough. I realize that some farm animals benefit from being
>farmed
>> and some don't.
>
>What does that mean? Do you mean some are mostly contented and others are
>mostly miserable?
Yup.
>What do you do to promote the former and discourage the latter?
Point it out to people. What do you do, besides encouraging
people not to give it any thought?
Why are you extremely opposed to people thinking that it might?
>Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies raising
>an animal,
No it's not. Why do you Gonads so very very VERY badly want
people to believe it is? One thing is for sure: you are afraid of the truth for
some reason. VERY afraid of it, to the point that you won't even acknowledge
it. Since my lying enemies are so afraid of it, it must be a good thing to keep
pointing it out.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>>>>conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>>>>from what he does say.
>>>
>>>Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
>>>with him.
>>
>>
>> It's easy enough.
>
>It sure is. I never had any difficulty at all in
>showing that you believe weird, irrational,
>contradictory bullshit.
>
>> I realize that some farm animals benefit from being farmed
>> and some don't.
>
>No, you don't. You *claim* that some animals "benefit
>from being farmed", and you are wrong. No animal
>"benefits" from being farmed. It's a complete absurdity.
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@mindspring.NS.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: contemplative affections
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT
Snuffles wrote:
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a4j4j7$c3c$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
>>usage too?
>>
>>
> Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
> rats!
> Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.
If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Rubystars
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:62blsvggdgs0kukbj...@4ax.com...
So then why do you go on about "Farming provides life as well as death."
> >A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight, or a
chicken
> >that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good
thing
> >for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
> >breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
> >animal that does not exist can not suffer.
> >
> >-Rubystars
>
> We agree that no life is better than a life of suffering. Where we
> disagree is on the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming,
> not on the fact that some do not.
How do they benefit? By "getting to experience life?"
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:28:12 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:19:27 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>>news:7Kdyb.22079$sb4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:28 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net>
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go on
>>>>>>>>about it a little farther:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Rubystars
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please share a well-founded, thought out belief in the
>>>>>first place, Fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that doesn't
>>>>exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. That was nothing. Please share any superior
>>
>>Fuck you and "superior", Fuckwit. You are demonstrably
>>inferior, in every way.
>
>
> LOL! If you were capable of contemplating the possibilities I feel
> sure it would be quite amusing Ball, but you can't, much less can
> you share them with others.
You do not have any special insight or superior
perception, Fuckwit. You do not understand things
better than others here, and in fact, you understand
them much worse.
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:27:01 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
>>>>>conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
>>>>
>>>>>from what he does say.
>>>>
>>>>Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
>>>>with him.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's easy enough.
>>
>>It sure is. I never had any difficulty at all in
>>showing that you believe weird, irrational,
>>contradictory bullshit.
>>
>>
>>>I realize that some farm animals benefit from being farmed
>>>and some don't.
>>
>>No, you don't. You *claim* that some animals "benefit
>>from being farmed", and you are wrong. No animal
>>"benefits" from being farmed. It's a complete absurdity.
[snip crap]
You didn't write anything to support your unsupportable
claim, Fuckwit. Animals do not benefit from being
farmed. Your claim is patently absurd. Life per se is
not a benefit.
Dutch
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:08:39 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <wind...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
> >> >> conceived. It's something that derives *necessarily*
> >> >> from what he does say.
> >> >
> >> >Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's
going
> >on
> >> >with him.
> >>
> >> It's easy enough. I realize that some farm animals benefit from
being
> >farmed
> >> and some don't.
> >
> >What does that mean? Do you mean some are mostly contented and others are
> >mostly miserable?
>
> Yup.
>
> >What do you do to promote the former and discourage the latter?
>
> Point it out to people.
That doesn't do anything to promote more contentment and less suffering for
farm animals.
> What do you do, besides encouraging
> people not to give it any thought?
It's not my campaign, it's yours, and you give it less than the barest lip
service.
> >> Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do.
> >
> >The way you use the word "benefit" doesn't make sense.
> >
> >> It
> >> certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other
> >people in
> >> these ngs appear unaware of. You can tell me they don't exist, but I
can
> >see
> >> animals benefitting from farming every day, so I know you're wrong.
> >
> >You mean you see cows grazing? So what? How do you know that their lives
> >amount to a net "benefit"?
How do you know? How do you judge? Are you just assuming it?
> >> >> > I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
> >> >> > cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
> >> >> humans raise to use and other animals. Right now,
> >> >> today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
> >> >> exist. It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
> >> >> belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
> >> >> thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
> >> >> them.
> >> >
> >> >Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life
and
> >> >death for them?
> >>
> >> I say it because it does. You can say it doesn't, but it still does
> >none
> >> the less.
> >
> >You're only rationalizing the use of animals. The fact that livestock
"get
> >to experience life" is not now and will never be a factor in deciding to
> >farm them.
> >
> >The only other people who argue a point like this are extreme animal
rights
> >utilitarians like Singer who argue that *if* animals were farmed in ideal
> >conditions, then their lives would constitute a net good.
>
> Why are you extremely opposed to people thinking that it might?
I'm not opposed to people thinking along the lines of the extreme
utilitarian as I described because it contains a moral condition. That is,
if humans were to take animals and create a kind of ideal environment for
them, as in The Polyface Farm
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/pasturedpoultry.html then it conceivably
becomes a supportable step to then say, their lives amount to a net good,
*and* we have had a hand in that good. It would be a logical extension of an
Animal Welfare position, a good thing.
But as I say right below, you're saying that simply because some of them
somewhere probably have some positive sensations from time to time,
therefore we should consider *that* in our moral judgment of raising them
for food. That's a really, really cheap rationalization.
> >Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies
raising
> >an animal,
>
> No it's not.
That's what you're saying, you want us to consider it morally relevant that
"some animals" have decent lives, you don't even specify that we have to
find out which ones and use meat from those particular ones.
> Why do you Gonads so very very VERY badly want
> people to believe it is? One thing is for sure: you are afraid of the
truth for
> some reason. VERY afraid of it, to the point that you won't even
acknowledge
> it. Since my lying enemies are so afraid of it, it must be a good thing to
keep
> pointing it out.
Then what are you saying? Why should it be relevant to me, a meat eater,
that "some livestock live decent lives"? Is it supposed to make me feel
better? It would only do so if I specifically patronized those farms where
those animals lived. Is it supposed to make ARAs think differently? They
don't believe that we ought to be exploiting animals as food as all. There's
no audience for a message like yours anywhere.
By the way, apparently I agree with you and am making your argument for you.
> >including fighting cocks and dogs, and I presume bullfighting.
This is true right? After all, some of them probably live decent lives, at
least some of the time..
Dutch
> > Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than
wild
> > rats!
> > Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.
>
> If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
> then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
If so, it's being in the lab environment that is the benefit, not being
born.
You're misusing the word benefit.
ipse dixit
Because his argument as you described it
isn't his, so if it's as bad as the false equation
you claim I'm using, then the chances are you
probably think he's using something I invented.
Anyway, you know fine well that that isn't
Ball's argument. He argues, as we all do,
that life per se is not a benefit. That's all.
>>>>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>>>>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>>>>not a benefit.
>>>
>>> It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
>>>absurd insistance that in order for something to be
>>>a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
>>>prior to obtaining it.
>>>
>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>no life is a loss.
>
> Why do you think that: If getting a million dollars is a
>benefit, then it's logically certain that not getting a million
>dollars is a loss?
>
Obviously not, since one would have to be in
possession of the money before losing it, and
likewise, one needs to be in possession of a
life before losing it. If something can be said to
be in a position where the prospect of a life is
beneficial, then that same position would mean
the prospect of no life is a loss. Such a position
is impossible, so any logical framework which
concludes one must conclude the other.
>>I have your own quotes which
>>prove you believe it, too.
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>>
>>>>Try to offer a valid argument against
>>>>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>>>>it's wrong without being able to say why?
>>>
>>> If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
>>>will be able to say why, because it is a benefit.
>>
>>It's logically certain that life isn't a benefit, but
>>like Dutch who also believes the same as you
>>do, you can only assert that it is and answer
>>that it is "self-evident" when asked to explain
>>your reasoning.
>>
Hello?
>>> You can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
>>
>>I've supported my argument to logically prove
>>life isn't a benefit.
>
> No you haven't, and you never will.
>
I have supported it with deductive reasoning
using your own premises to prove that life
per se cannot be a benefit. If you want to
reject the conclusion (3) you must also reject
your own premise (1). You can have a stab
at (2) if you like, but I wouldn't waste my
time and effort on it, personally.
>>What proof are you going to
>>offer that will prove it is a benefit?
>
> The only reason you can benefit is because you have
>life.
Then that ruins your argument, because you
have given the beneficiary of life a relative
position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged
any further by giving it life. A benefit is
something gained from a relative position,
so if life is a benefit, what was that relative
position of the beneficiary before life if not
dead or unborn?
>If that fact doesn't let you know life is a benefit, then
>nothing can let you know.
In other words, like Dutch, you're claiming
"It's self -evident." "That fact", your fact,
relies upon the beneficiary already being
alive, so giving it a life doesn't give it any
further advantage from that position. That
being so, life per se cannot be a benefit to
it.
>If such a simple fact is too much for you,
>you should probably stick with even simpler
>things to think about.
>
"The fact", your fact, is absurd and doesn't
bear thinking about.
>>>If you broke down and accepted the fact
>>
>>"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach
>>your absurd conclusion?
>
> LOL!!! Hell no.
You asked for it ;-) Don't go telling someone
like me you "broke down" first in order to reach
your conclusion, Dave. Poor little Dutch has had
a right bad time of things since telling me he found
deluding himself quite comforting. You don't want
that sort of thing hanging round your neck as well.
>I didn't have to. I was never unable
>to understand the fact, so I never had to break down
>in order to accept the fact. You would have to, but
>it's too late for you now, and you're not going to admit
>you've been wrong. But what if you did? The Gonad
>would be all over you...
Pah!
>unless you're the Gonad posting
>under a different name again.
You know who I am.
>That freak posts using so
>many different names, maybe half the discussions in
>these ngs are just him talking to himself.
>
Apart from "Pearl" and "RGB", I can't swear for
sure he's using any other names.
>>> maybe you
>>>could move on with it to something worthwhile. But
>>>there isn't much hope of that in these news groups
>>>now is there? No.
>
> You veg*ns and your opponents seem to be on common
>ground about it.
For my part, coming into being didn't advance
me from any previous position, so I don't view
my life as a benefit.
>It appears as though you may not want to
>be though, and why is that?
>
It seems to me we're all on common ground
about it, apart from Dutch, and are quite
satisfied with our conclusion, singularly and
as a whole.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:32:33 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> If you contend (in this thread) that life is
>> >> >> not a benefit, then you aren't refuting my
>> >> >> conclusion. You are agreeing with it.
>> >> >> (3) life is not a benefit.
>> >> >
>> >> >I refuted fuckwit's argument you idiot!
>> >> >
>> >> You have in this thread, as I've pointed out
>> >> already, so you are in fact agreeing with the
>> >> conclusion, (3) life is not a benefit.
>> >>
>> I'm glad to see it's sunk in at last.
>
>I've been telling fuckwit that for two years, where have you been?
>
You've been dodging from one foot to the
other on this issue since screwing up early
last week by accepting Harrison's argument
that life is a benefit.
>> >> >> >> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>> >> >> >> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>> >> >> >> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>> >> >> >> >he already has it.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> What you've just done is successfully defend
>> >> >> >> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
>> >> >> >> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Fuck off with the numbers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
>> >> >> logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
>> >> >> chump.
>> >> >
>> >> Well, chump?
>> >
>> >Fuck off.
>> >
>> Try making me, chump, instead of just cutting
>> out and running for the door.
>
>I have adequately dealt with everything of substance you have presented.
>
You've cut-n-run from about three different
threads, each time claiming to have dealt
with the issues in a thread you've already
cut-n-run from. You're a joke.
>> >> >> >my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
>> >> >> >END>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go
>> >> >> yet. Buckle up...
>> >> >
>> >> >How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments.
>> >>
>> >> Taking the flesh away from an argument and
>> >> putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
>> >> for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.
>> >
>> >Your "syllogism" is a convoluted mess designed to
>> > make you look intelligent.
>>
>> My syllogism, according to Jonathan, "is valid
>> deductive logic that shows WHY life per se
>> cannot be a benefit." Is he wrong yet again?
>> That'd make three errors in a row this week.
>> Priceless!
>
>You don't waste much time hiding behind Jonathan do you?
>
Answer the question. Is he correct about the
"valid and deductive logic that shows WHY
life per se cannot be a benefit", or is he wrong
for the third time in a row?
>> >It has no other purpose.
>> >
>> Don't blame anyone but yourself for your
>> ignorance on deductive logic, Dutch. It's
>> an excellent tool.
>
>Using the form you used is a waste of time
>on fuckwit, plain english is all that's required.
>
Required for what?
Of course not.
>> The only valid way he
>> can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
>> That should keep him suitably confused for
>> a while.
>
>I'll tell you right now, he will reject out of hand
So?
>1) if life is a
>benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born. He'll simply re-assert
>that life is a benefit, the benefit that makes all other benefits possible.
Then he'll either have to prove it or continue to
look pretty stupid.
>The fact is, what he really means is that life itself is a good thing, and
>should be "promoted" in every way because it makes benefits possible. We've
>gotten hung up on this word "benefit" when in fact it's not the basis of his
>position.
Are you trying to make his position seem
more rational now I've pinned the two of
you together, Dutch?
>His argument is the most self-rationalizing form of sophistry
>imaginable, that's the really disgusting part of it.
>
Because you actually believe it, although you
don't like the way he's delivering it. That's
why.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
>> >
>> >Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
>> >
>> This is about the third snip and run you've
>> tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
>> the same in other threads. What's the matter
>> with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
>> something?
>
>No, you've just become extremely tiresome and repetitious. Generally you
>make clearly wrong statements that are interesting to refute. Here you're
>just rambling and repeating yourself.
>
>You aren't worth that much effort.
>
>-SNIP-
>
Stand your ground, you fucking coward, and answer
these points.
To anyone who might've forgotten what Dutch is
running from in this post, and others, please give
what I've unsnipped another glance over before
going onto your next unread message.
<unsnip>
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:34:18 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:0j1fsvsj596srk70d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:q3iesv85jqjq6rak2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >> >
Thank you.
Dutch
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:12:19 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:32:33 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> If you contend (in this thread) that life is
> >> >> >> not a benefit, then you aren't refuting my
> >> >> >> conclusion. You are agreeing with it.
> >> >> >> (3) life is not a benefit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I refuted fuckwit's argument you idiot!
> >> >> >
> >> >> You have in this thread, as I've pointed out
> >> >> already, so you are in fact agreeing with the
> >> >> conclusion, (3) life is not a benefit.
> >> >>
> >> I'm glad to see it's sunk in at last.
> >
> >I've been telling fuckwit that for two years, where have you been?
> >
> You've been dodging from one foot to the
> other on this issue since screwing up early
> last week by accepting Harrison's argument
> that life is a benefit.
You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument. See the post yesterday
where I thoroughly refute his argument.
> You've cut-n-run from about three different
> threads, each time claiming to have dealt
> with the issues in a thread you've already
> cut-n-run from.
I have adequately dealt with everything of substance you have presented. I'm
not going to indulge your broken record and badgering techniques.
> >Using the form you used is a waste of time
> >on fuckwit, plain english is all that's required.
> >
> Required for what?
To show that life itself is not a benefit.
> >> >Let's just see how your approach works.
> >> >
> >> It worked perfectly.
> >
> >Did fuckwit accept it?
> >
> Of course not.
Then it didn't work.
> >> The only valid way he
> >> can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
> >> That should keep him suitably confused for
> >> a while.
> >
> >I'll tell you right now, he will reject out of hand
>
> So?
As I said, you're wasting your time.
>
> >1) if life is a
> >benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born. He'll simply
re-assert
> >that life is a benefit, the benefit that makes all other benefits
possible.
>
> Then he'll either have to prove it or continue to
> look pretty stupid.
And that advances the argument against him exactly zero.
> >The fact is, what he really means is that life itself is a good thing,
and
> >should be "promoted" in every way because it makes benefits possible.
We've
> >gotten hung up on this word "benefit" when in fact it's not the basis of
his
> >position.
>
> Are you trying to make his position seem
> more rational?
Not his position, but his wording, we're all hung up on the word benefit,
when he means "net good". I obtained that clarification from him yesterday.
> >His argument is the most self-rationalizing form of sophistry
> >imaginable, that's the really disgusting part of it.
> >
> Because you actually believe it, although you
> don't like the way he's delivering it. That's
> why.
No, I don't agree with the strict utilitarian view as expressed by Singer
wrt to The Polyface Farm, I don't hold that the lives of meat animals can
ever be considered a moral 'net good'. I most certainly do NOT agree with
Harrison's sick, watered-down version of it.
Dutch
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:44 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
> >> >
> >> >Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
> >> >
> >> This is about the third snip and run you've
> >> tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
> >> the same in other threads. What's the matter
> >> with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
> >> something?
> >
> >No, you've just become extremely tiresome and repetitious. Generally you
> >make clearly wrong statements that are interesting to refute. Here you're
> >just rambling and repeating yourself.
> >
> >You aren't worth that much effort.
> >
> >-SNIP-
> >
> Stand your ground, you fucking coward, and answer
> these points.
It's all repetition, and senseless badgering. Make coherent arguments and I
respond, once.
-SNIP-
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:nramsv01ohh1d3l0v...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You've been dodging from one foot to the
>> other on this issue since screwing up early
>> last week by accepting Harrison's argument
>> that life is a benefit.
>
>You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument.
You do accept Harrison's argument, and this is
shown in the threads you've been cutting and
running from.
[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]
> [ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]
You've also claimed, as Harrison does, that it's
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:44 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
>> >> >
>> >> >Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
>> >> >
>> >> This is about the third snip and run you've
>> >> tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
>> >> the same in other threads. What's the matter
>> >> with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
>> >> something?
>> >
>> >No, you've just become extremely tiresome and repetitious. Generally you
>> >make clearly wrong statements that are interesting to refute. Here you're
>> >just rambling and repeating yourself.
>> >
>> >You aren't worth that much effort.
>> >
>> >-SNIP-
>> >
>> Stand your ground, you fucking coward, and answer
>> these points.
>
>It's all repetition
You haven't addressed the points, so it's
bound to keep repeating on you until you
do address them. You and Rick are
running around like a couple of headless
trolls in a vegan news group. Neither of
you can cope with the issues, and it looks
pretty certain you can't cope with your own
absurd claims when faced with them either.
<unsnip>
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:34:18 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:0j1fsvsj596srk70d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:20:21 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:q3iesv85jqjq6rak2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:31:46 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >> >
Dutch
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:48:55 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >>
> >> other on this issue since screwing up early
> >> last week by accepting Harrison's argument
> >> that life is a benefit.
> >
> >You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument.
>
> You do accept Harrison's argument,
No, I reject his argument now, as I have for two years.
Dutch
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:55:58 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:44 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:03:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote nothing
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fuck off Dreck, you're a waste of time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> This is about the third snip and run you've
> >> >> tried. Even Etter's running away by doing
> >> >> the same in other threads. What's the matter
> >> >> with you antis all of a sudden; gone soft or
> >> >> something?
> >> >
> >> >No, you've just become extremely tiresome and repetitious. Generally
you
> >> >make clearly wrong statements that are interesting to refute. Here
you're
> >> >just rambling and repeating yourself.
> >> >
> >> >You aren't worth that much effort.
> >> >
> >> >-SNIP-
> >> >
> >> Stand your ground, you fucking coward, and answer
> >> these points.
> >
> >It's all repetition
>
> You haven't addressed the points,
I have addressed every one, you've added nothing of substance. There is
nothing of substance that shows I support Harrison's position.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:48:55 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> You've been dodging from one foot to the
>> >> other on this issue since screwing up early
>> >> last week by accepting Harrison's argument
>> >> that life is a benefit.
>> >
>> >You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument.
>>
>> 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.
<unsnip>
Way to go ...
<end>
Dutch
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:56:43 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> 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.