FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b..

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:03:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> Some livestock benefit from farming and some don't
>>
>>For the most part you don't know whether a cut of meat came from one or
>>the
>>other when you are in the supermarket. Unless you do, and you choose your
>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless. So what if some livestock
>>have good lives (assuming that's what you mean by "benefit from farming")
>>and some don't? So what?
>
> So if people want to contribute to good lives for livestock with their
> lifestyle, they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal
> products,
> NOT vegans. Duh.

People want to avoid contributing to animal abuse, being a conscientious
consumer of animal products or avoiding animal products can both potentially
acheive that.

>>Some *people* have good lives and some don't, that
>>says nothing at all about the morality of having children per se. Your
>>statement makes NO comment on the ethics of vegetarianism or the use of
>>animals.
>>
>>> The ONLY reason you/"aras" lie and say they
>>> don't,
>>
>>We don't say that. Leif correctly says that you are using the word
>>"benefit"
>>improperly.
>>
>>> is because it suggests that decent AW could
>>> be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar"/elimination,
>>> Goo.
>>
>>You can't possibly believe that is what we are suggesting.
>
> That is the ONLY thing I can believe you are suggesting.

Then read below.

>>Raising animals
>>and treating them properly *IS* "ethically equivalent or superior to
>>"ar"/elimination", we are not disputing that. We're saying that you cannot
>>do what you are doing, look at livestock in general, assert that some of
>>them must have decent lives, then attempt to use that assertion as an
>>argument against vegetarianism. It's childish and you should stop doing
>>it.
>>Concentrate on arguments with substance.
>
> As I've pointed out many times: The lives of livestock necessarily
> cannot be of positive consideration to you/"aras" because that
> works against what you want people to believe. In contrast, it is a
> very significant aspect of human influence on animals, and necessarily
> MUST be appreciated by anyone who considers the animals themselves.

So are *you* a conscientious consumer of animal products? Does this
principle work both ways? If it's good to contribute to decent lives for
animals is it wrong to contribute to rotten lives for animals, or to consume
with no thought to how the animals are treated?
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:54:48 -0700, Marche <4cast RemoveThis @whether.net> wrote:

>Marche wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>
>>
>>> argument against vegetarianism. It's childish and you should stop
>>> doing it. Concentrate on arguments with substance.
>>
>>
>> Butchy, I forgot to ask why you're being a control freak here. Yeah, it
>> shows real well. Can you answer?
>
>Butch, this is what your epic battle with Harrison is really all about,
>isn't it?

It's what "aras" do in general. They apparently have gotten the
idea that they're in a position to dictate what people can and can
not take into consideration...and amusingly what is and is not allowed
appears to change from time to time...

>I believe your own words to me have tripped you up here, and
>you have neither the brains nor balls to answer.

Or if he does, it will probably be some maundered ineptitude
which is simply a technique for changing the subject. It's what
goos do.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, the comical "Doctor" Goo amusingly assumed:

>Ptooie, the Shame of Canoga Park, blabbered:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>> which would indicate that Goo is being critical and
>>> feels I should change my belief(s).
>>
>> I see what you mean, yeah.
>
>No you don't

Maybe...maybe not Goo. People try to get others to abandon
flawed beliefs and accept something better. So you doing nothing
but continuing to insist I believe such things that I've long ago
explained I don't believe, gives the clear appearance of you being
simply childish and dishonest, and makes you look like a complete
moron. Maybe he can see what you make so clear Goo, or maybe
not, but you do make your desperate dishonesty extremely clear for
anyone who cares to see it.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:sRNtg.8428$cd3.7614@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:pcGtg.4337$vO.699@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dh@. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:03:42 +0100, "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Jonathan Ball aka "Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
> >>>>>>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
> >>>>>>http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Instead of that garbage, why don't you just make a list
> >>>>>of which absurdities you do believe in
> >>>>
> >>>>She believes in *all* of these:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Liar.
> >>
> >>No. You believe in *all* of them:
> >
> >
> > <yawn> No I do not
>
> Yes, you do - *all* of them:
>
>
>
> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth"
> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucer
> Zapper
> Foot massage (as cure-all)
> Astrology
> Numerology
> Alien abduction
> bestiality
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains
> Sun gazing
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> participation in skinhead subculture
> the validity of online IQ tests
> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
> Jeff Rense for "news"
> long-debunked legends about "ageless wonders"
>
> archived evidence of the above:
> http://tinyurl.com/h0br
> http://tinyurl.com/h0bl
> http://tinyurl.com/v5p8
> http://tinyurl.com/v5pf
> http://tinyurl.com/mh5w
> http://tinyurl.com/mh6h
> http://tinyurl.com/mh6r
> http://tinyurl.com/mh71
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7j
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7p
> http://tinyurl.com/v5jj
> http://tinyurl.com/v5kd
> http://tinyurl.com/v5l6
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
> http://tinyurl.com/v5fj
> http://tinyurl.com/v5fp
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ga
> http://tinyurl.com/v5gc
> http://tinyurl.com/v5i2
> http://tinyurl.com/v5gk
> http://tinyurl.com/v5h1
> http://tinyurl.com/v5h9
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:32:53 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:03:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> Some livestock benefit from farming and some don't
>>>
>>>For the most part you don't know whether a cut of meat came from one or
>>>the
>>>other when you are in the supermarket. Unless you do, and you choose your
>>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless. So what if some livestock
>>>have good lives (assuming that's what you mean by "benefit from farming")
>>>and some don't? So what?
>>
>> So if people want to contribute to good lives for livestock with their
>> lifestyle, they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal
>> products,
>> NOT vegans. Duh.
>
>People want to avoid contributing to animal abuse, being a conscientious
>consumer of animal products or avoiding animal products can both potentially
>acheive that.

If people want to contribute to good lives for livestock with their
lifestyle, they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal
products, NOT vegans. Duh. Why don't you want people to keep
that fact in mind? What are you/"aras" afraid could happen if they
do?

>>>Some *people* have good lives and some don't, that
>>>says nothing at all about the morality of having children per se. Your
>>>statement makes NO comment on the ethics of vegetarianism or the use of
>>>animals.
>>>
>>>> The ONLY reason you/"aras" lie and say they
>>>> don't,
>>>
>>>We don't say that. Leif correctly says that you are using the word
>>>"benefit"
>>>improperly.
>>>
>>>> is because it suggests that decent AW could
>>>> be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar"/elimination,
>>>> Goo.
>>>
>>>You can't possibly believe that is what we are suggesting.
>>
>> That is the ONLY thing I can believe you are suggesting.
>
>Then read below.
>
>>>Raising animals
>>>and treating them properly *IS* "ethically equivalent or superior to
>>>"ar"/elimination", we are not disputing that. We're saying that you cannot
>>>do what you are doing, look at livestock in general, assert that some of
>>>them must have decent lives, then attempt to use that assertion as an
>>>argument against vegetarianism. It's childish and you should stop doing
>>>it.
>>>Concentrate on arguments with substance.
>>
>> As I've pointed out many times: The lives of livestock necessarily
>> cannot be of positive consideration to you/"aras" because that
>> works against what you want people to believe. In contrast, it is a
>> very significant aspect of human influence on animals, and necessarily
>> MUST be appreciated by anyone who considers the animals themselves.
>
>So are *you* a conscientious consumer of animal products? Does this
>principle work both ways? If it's good to contribute to decent lives for
>animals is it wrong to contribute to rotten lives for animals, or to consume
>with no thought to how the animals are treated?

What do you think, if you're capable of thinking about it at all?
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:32:53 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

[..]

>>> As I've pointed out many times: The lives of livestock necessarily
>>> cannot be of positive consideration to you/"aras" because that
>>> works against what you want people to believe. In contrast, it is a
>>> very significant aspect of human influence on animals, and necessarily
>>> MUST be appreciated by anyone who considers the animals themselves.
>>
>>So are *you* a conscientious consumer of animal products? Does this
>>principle work both ways? If it's good to contribute to decent lives for
>>animals is it wrong to contribute to rotten lives for animals, or to
>>consume
>>with no thought to how the animals are treated?
>
> What do you think, if you're capable of thinking about it at all?

I asked you first.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Goo lied:

>dh pointed out:

>> Some livestock benefit from farming.
>
>WRONG

Only an idiot "ara" would deny it, Goo.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> Maybe...maybe not Goo.
>
>No

Maybe Goo.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" <pipes DeleteThis @thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:gZtug.5160$vO.4741@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >
> >
> >>><yawn> No I do not
> >>
> >>Yes, you do - *all* of them:
> >
> >
> > Then put
>
> Fuck off. You believe them. This has been more than
> amply demonstrated.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" <pipes DeleteThis @thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:Iayug.9030$PE1.3736@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > pearl wrote:
> >
> > > "Leif Erikson" <pipes DeleteThis @thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:Xqwug.5233$vO.1021@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >>pearl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"Leif Erikson" <pipes DeleteThis @thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:gZtug.5160$vO.4741@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>pearl wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>><yawn> No I do not
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, you do - *all* of them:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Then put a quote to each of the items.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Fuck off. You believe them. This has been more than
> > >>amply demonstrated.
>
> False.
>
> > > You can't.
> >
> > Done, dozens of times.
>
> You haven't put a quote to each item. You can't.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, blabbered:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:32:53 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:03:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Some livestock benefit from farming and some don't

NO livestock benefit from being farmed.


>>>>
>>>>For the most part you don't know whether a cut of meat came from one or
>>>>the
>>>>other when you are in the supermarket. Unless you do, and you choose your
>>>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless. So what if some livestock
>>>>have good lives (assuming that's what you mean by "benefit from farming")
>>>>and some don't? So what?
>>>
>>> So if people want to contribute to good lives for livestock with their
>>>lifestyle, they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal
>>>products,
>>>NOT vegans. Duh.
>>
>>People want to avoid contributing to animal abuse, being a conscientious
>>consumer of animal products or avoiding animal products can both potentially
>>acheive that.
>
>
> If people want to contribute to good lives for livestock

YOU don't:


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.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

==========

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006

==========

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.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999


>>>>Some *people* have good lives and some don't, that
>>>>says nothing at all about the morality of having children per se. Your
>>>>statement makes NO comment on the ethics of vegetarianism or the use of
>>>>animals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ONLY reason you/"aras" lie and say they
>>>>>don't,
>>>>
>>>>We don't say that. Leif correctly says that you are using the word
>>>>"benefit"
>>>>improperly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is because it suggests that decent AW could
>>>>>be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar"/elimination,
>>>>>Goo.
>>>>
>>>>You can't possibly believe that is what we are suggesting.
>>>
>>> That is the ONLY thing I can believe you are suggesting.
>>
>>Then read below.
>>
>>
>>>>Raising animals
>>>>and treating them properly *IS* "ethically equivalent or superior to
>>>>"ar"/elimination", we are not disputing that. We're saying that you cannot
>>>>do what you are doing, look at livestock in general, assert that some of
>>>>them must have decent lives, then attempt to use that assertion as an
>>>>argument against vegetarianism. It's childish and you should stop doing
>>>>it.
>>>>Concentrate on arguments with substance.
>>>
>>> As I've pointed out many times: The lives of livestock necessarily
>>>cannot be of positive consideration to you/"aras" because

Because livestock "getting to experience life", coming
into existence, "being farmed", is not anything worthy
of moral consideration.


>>>works against what you want people to believe. In contrast, it is a
>>>very significant aspect of human influence on animals,

NO significance at all.

>>>and necessarily
>>>MUST be appreciated

False. There's no reason to give it any thought at all.


>>>by anyone who considers the animals themselves.
>>
>>So are *you* a conscientious consumer of animal products?

No, he isn't. He doesn't care:

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.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

==========

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006

==========

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.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999



>>Does this
>>principle work both ways? If it's good to contribute to decent lives for
>>animals is it wrong to contribute to rotten lives for animals, or to consume
>>with no thought to how the animals are treated?
>
>
> What do you think, if you're capable of thinking about it at all?

He thinks, as do all sensible people who think about
this, that livestock coming into existence - "being
farmed", "getting to experience life" - is not a
benefit to them. It isn't.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Leif Erikson, lifelong seeker of truth, wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>
>
>>>Some livestock benefit from farming.
>>
>>WRONG, Fuckwit. NO livestock benefit from coming into existence. Your fundamental belief is WRONG.
>
>
> Only an idiot "ara" would deny it, Leif.

No, Fuckwit. Coming into existence IS NOT a benefit.
Period. It cannot be, based on the very definition of
"benefit".

I hope that helps.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>
>
>>> Maybe...maybe not Leif.
>>
>>No, there's no question about it, Fuckwit. Ptooie does *not* "see what you mean", because what you mean is bullshit.
>
>
> Maybe Leif.

No "maybe" about it, Fuckwit - what you mean is
bullshit. Coming into existence - "being farmed",
"getting to experience life" - is never a "benefit" for
livestock. It can't be.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b..