Fuckwit's beliefs - the two crucial ones

Fuckwit is 'dh_ld@nomail.com'.

Fuckwit's goofy attempt at a trick is to pretend he is
urging "vegans" to "promote decent lives" for farm
animals, when in fact, we see that he wants "vegans" to
support life per se, not decent lives, for farm
animals. Among thousands of things he has written, two
in particular make clear that Fuckwit believes life per
se for farm animals, not "decent lives", is what he's
really pushing:

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

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


The emphasis in the first quote, that "they *will* be
born", is Fuckwit's own. Fuckwit feels that because
unborn farm animals "*will*" be born, they thereby are
morally considerable. The kind of consideration
Fuckwit gives is, they *ought* to be born, and anyone
who wants to prevent their birth is "denying" them
something. The unavoidable implication, whether or not
Fuckwit admits it, is that he believes the unborn farm
animals "exist" in some kind of pre-born state.

The second quote confirms that Fuckwit believes the
unconceived farm animals exist, and can experience the
"loss" of a "benefit". The second quote is really a
restatement of the first, with the addition of his
belief that the unconceived farm animals actually
*experience* the prevention of their lives as a "loss".

No one has lied about Fuckwit's irrational beliefs.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:37:35 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:

>Fuckwit is 'dh_ld@nomail.com'.
>
>Fuckwit's goofy attempt at a trick is to pretend he is
>urging "vegans" to "promote decent lives" for farm
>animals, when in fact, we see that he wants "vegans" to
>support life per se, not decent lives, for farm
>animals. Among thousands of things he has written, two
>in particular make clear that Fuckwit believes life per
>se for farm animals, not "decent lives", is what he's
>really pushing:

· Some animals benefit from farming and some don't. We
clearly see that it's of great importance to "ARAs" to
prevent people from considering that *any* animals benefit
from farming. That is because "ARAs" want to eliminate
domestic animals, and recognition of how some of them
benefit from their relationship with humans could only have
a negative influence on what they would like to accomplish.·