FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted as needed) - special posting for Ted&Alice

[Rudy Canoza]

Fuckwit, aka Goo, who sometimes uses the alias "David
Harrison", has long insisted that people have "lied" about
his beliefs. No one has lied about his beliefs. He
has written thousands of usenet posts based on his
beliefs, and we have correctly interpreted his writing.
His belief about animals, specifically his belief
that animals "getting to experience life" is a morally
good thing in and of itself, is something that appears
frequently and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind
of clarity.

Read these quotes that have been culled from Goo/Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over TWELVE YEARS, and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks and
quotation marks, is Goo/Fuckwit's own.

You really have to wonder why Goo/Fuckwit even bothered to
start on this at all:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Goo/Fuckwit - 11/30/1999

Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

He claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
utilitarian to Goo/Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
lives is instrumental, as a means to products Goo/Fuckwit
wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
consideration. Goo/Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
only interested in the products they yield:

Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Goo/Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Goo/Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006

He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999


This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
ignore their suffering is an admission that he
*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
products they yield.

He believes unconceived/unborn farm animals can experience things
before they exist - loss, deprivation, unfairness:

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Goo/Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Goo/Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Goo/Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Goo/Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Goo/Fuckwit - 03/22/2005


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Goo/Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/12/2003

Of course, he's completely wrong on that - many people
certainly *do* have a problem with it. In fact, rational
people recognize there is no "trade off" - no "deal" -
at all.

He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Goo/Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Goo/Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Goo/Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

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.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, we pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/20/1999

But of course, he's lying, because he later claims that
animals *don't care* about their own welfare or quality
of life:

They don't care [about standing knee-deep in excrement].
Goo/Fuckwit - 01/31/2011


And the latest:

There are things that everyone can understand that other
people can't.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/31/2016

Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Goo/Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life, simply
to ensure he continues to get to eat them. And he feels
anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another at all, as long as Goo/Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in Goo/Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Goo/Fuckwit's beliefs. Goo/Fuckwit
believes everything we have said he believes, as
supported by Goo/Fuckwit's own ranting.

[Keyser Soze]

Is "Fuckwit" a handle one of the righties in here uses elsewhere? I can
think of a few it would fit.

[Ted&Alice]

Thank you, Rudy. While reading the above, I tried to figure out what sort
of person would write those things. That person would surely need to have a
low IQ, and he'd have to be a vicious sociopath. He'd also be required to
hold an unrealistically high opinion of himself. Fuckwit is not only
stupid, I learned, but also dangerous. And we're being far too kind to him
by calling him "fuckwit".