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

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
>>
>>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,

There is no reason, for the animals, for people to want
them to exist, Fuckwit. The only reason people want
them to exist is to obtain products from them.


>>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.

Fuckwit is using the word improperly.


>>>is because it suggests that decent AW could
>>>be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar"/elimination,
>>>Leif.
>>
>>You can't possibly believe that is what we are suggesting.
>
>
> That is the ONLY thing I can believe you are suggesting.

Your beliefs are irrational.


>>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 bullshit bullshit

Causing livestock to be born is not conferring any
"benefit" on them, Fuckwit. That's just how it is.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

"Leif Erikson" <pipes.RemoveThis@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:Xqwug.5233$vO.1021@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" <pipes.RemoveThis@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:gZtug.5160$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.

You can't. That's what's been amply demonstrated, liar.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

"Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:Iayug.9030$PE1.3736@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:Xqwug.5233$vO.1021@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@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.. 

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.

That statement accepts Harrison's claim that "Some animals
benefit from farming and some don't", even though, "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." Way to
go, Dutch!

>Unless you do,

Irrelevant. He only needs to agree with you in that, "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.", because
that statement necessarily means that, for some small part he
knows that his cuts of meat came from animals that benefited
from being farmed.

>and you choose your
>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless.

He does choose his meat on that basis, allegedly, and so
according to your acceptance of his logic his statement isn't
pointless at all. It seems likely that I was wrong about you
when I wrote,

"Despite your earlier statements, your comments this week
convince me that your opposition to the logic of the larder
is a genuine one you're comfortable with ..."

Your opposition to the logic of the larder isn't genuine after
all, because it's clear that you're in agreement with Harrison
in that, "Some animals benefit from farming and some don't",
even though, "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."

You really ought to (as in can and should) drop this issue
with Harrison, Dutch, because he's getting the better of you
and showing to all that you're still in agreement with him on
it, dummy.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
>goober cracker, lied:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Goo 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, Goo.
>
>No, Fuckwit. Coming into existence IS NOT a benefit.

They benefit after coming into existence, Goo.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:02:39 +0100, Derek <usenet.email DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:03:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @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.
>
>That statement accepts Harrison's claim that "Some animals
>benefit from farming and some don't", even though, "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." Way to
>go, Dutch!
>
>>Unless you do,
>
>Irrelevant. He only needs to agree with you in that, "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.", because
>that statement necessarily means that, for some small part he
>knows that his cuts of meat came from animals that benefited
>from being farmed.
>
>>and you choose your
>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless.
>
>He does choose his meat on that basis, allegedly, and so
>according to your acceptance of his logic his statement isn't
>pointless at all. It seems likely that I was wrong about you
>when I wrote,
>
> "Despite your earlier statements, your comments this week
> convince me that your opposition to the logic of the larder
> is a genuine one you're comfortable with ..."
>
>Your opposition to the logic of the larder isn't genuine after
>all, because it's clear that you're in agreement with Harrison
>in that, "Some animals benefit from farming and some don't",
>even though, "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."
>
>You really ought to (as in can and should) drop this issue
>with Harrison, Dutch, because he's getting the better of you
>and showing to all that you're still in agreement with him on
>it, dummy.

He doesn't know what he thinks. At one time he pasted:

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal."

but now claims to disagree with himself about it, though amusingly
he can't explain how or why he thinks he does.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

"Derek" <usenet.email RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qrdpb25d7mlj380ghfcbr0iqb2l32jh47n@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
> That statement accepts Harrison's claim that "Some animals
> benefit from farming and some don't", even though, "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." Way to
> go, Dutch!

Purely for the sake of discussing and refuting the conclusions of his
position I am accepting his phrase "to benefit from farming" to mean "to
live under decent conditions" (i.e. not suffer) even though it is an obvious
equivocation on his part between "coming into existence" and "having a
decent life".

>>Unless you do,
>
> Irrelevant. He only needs to agree with you in that, "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.", because
> that statement necessarily means that, for some small part he
> knows that his cuts of meat came from animals that benefited
> from being farmed.

He doesn't know that, that was my point.

>>and you choose your
>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless.
>
> He does choose his meat on that basis, allegedly,

No he doesn't, Leif has a whole list of quotes where he admits that he
doesn't.

> and so
> according to your acceptance of his logic his statement isn't
> pointless at all.

Yes it is. It's only relevant to point out that some livestock have better
lives than others (assuming for the sake of discussion the only possible
logical meaning of his position) if you actually direct your consumption on
that basis. Simply saying it does nothing.

> It seems likely that I was wrong about you
> when I wrote,
>
> "Despite your earlier statements, your comments this week
> convince me that your opposition to the logic of the larder
> is a genuine one you're comfortable with ..."

It figures that any sanity you demonstrate would turn out to be short-lived.

> Your opposition to the logic of the larder isn't genuine after
> all, because it's clear that you're in agreement with Harrison
> in that, "Some animals benefit from farming and some don't",
> even though, "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."
>
> You really ought to (as in can and should) drop this issue
> with Harrison, Dutch, because he's getting the better of you
> and showing to all that you're still in agreement with him on
> it, dummy.

I should drop it because it's a poor use of my time, not because I agree
with him.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:uv9qb2hcehlgovi0vhnp3683hucn2tb0j0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:02:39 +0100, Derek <usenet.email.RemoveThis@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>That statement accepts Harrison's claim that "Some animals
>>benefit from farming and some don't", even though, "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." Way to
>>go, Dutch!
>>
>>>Unless you do,
>>
>>Irrelevant. He only needs to agree with you in that, "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.", because
>>that statement necessarily means that, for some small part he
>>knows that his cuts of meat came from animals that benefited
>>from being farmed.
>>
>>>and you choose your
>>>meat on that basis, the statement is pointless.
>>
>>He does choose his meat on that basis, allegedly, and so
>>according to your acceptance of his logic his statement isn't
>>pointless at all. It seems likely that I was wrong about you
>>when I wrote,
>>
>> "Despite your earlier statements, your comments this week
>> convince me that your opposition to the logic of the larder
>> is a genuine one you're comfortable with ..."
>>
>>Your opposition to the logic of the larder isn't genuine after
>>all, because it's clear that you're in agreement with Harrison
>>in that, "Some animals benefit from farming and some don't",
>>even though, "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."
>>
>>You really ought to (as in can and should) drop this issue
>>with Harrison, Dutch, because he's getting the better of you
>>and showing to all that you're still in agreement with him on
>>it, dummy.
>
> He doesn't know what he thinks. At one time he pasted:
>
> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal."

That applies if and only if the animal exists. It's a statement of belief in
animal welfare. It doesn't mean that vegetarians can be criticized for
failing to support the breeding of livestock. That is an absurd argument.

> but now claims to disagree with himself about it, though amusingly
> he can't explain how or why he thinks he does.

I agree completely with my earlier statement.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:5rpsb2d20v7hi3dvsh699h1901gdhl853l@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:07:52 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>><dh@.> wrote in message news:2n9qb2pmpfulhqffvg41u4b31m6gk4do2q@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:49:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>It's morally superior to raise livestock and provide them with decent
> >>>>>lives
> >>>>>rather than raise livestock and give the quality of their lives no
> >>>>>consideration. That is the "different issue", the one worth considering.
> >>>>
> >>>> Without referring to your imaginary moral browny points, try to
> >>>> explain why.
> >>>
> >>>If we raise animals and do not give consideration to the quality of their
> >>>lives we cause animal suffering, therefore we should consider the quality
> >>>of
> >>>their lives.
> >>
> >> Okay. Now, again without referring to your imaginary moral browny
> >> points, try to explain why we should refuse to consider how the animals
> >> themselves benefit from lives of positive value.
> >
> >We don't, that's the reason we make the effort to make sure they enjoy
> >decent conditions. That doesn't mean that's why we breed them in first
> >place.


>
> Don't what? Try to explain it

Don't refuse to consider quality of life for animals, Fuckwit.

You *have* admitted that you don't care about
animal welfare, 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.
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


You DO NOT, and you NEVER DID, care about animal
welfare, Fuckwit. It has only been a smokescreen.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:5rpsb2d20v7hi3dvsh699h1901gdhl853l@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:07:52 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:2n9qb2pmpfulhqffvg41u4b31m6gk4do2q@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:49:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>>>>>It's morally superior to raise livestock and provide them with decent
>>>>>lives
>>>>>rather than raise livestock and give the quality of their lives no
>>>>>consideration. That is the "different issue", the one worth considering.
>>>>
>>>> Without referring to your imaginary moral browny points, try to
>>>> explain why.
>>>
>>>If we raise animals and do not give consideration to the quality of their
>>>lives we cause animal suffering, therefore we should consider the quality
>>>of
>>>their lives.
>>
>> Okay. Now, again without referring to your imaginary moral browny
>> points, try to explain why we should refuse to consider how the animals
>> themselves benefit from lives of positive value.
>
>We don't,

Don't what? Try to explain it without your imaginary browny points.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:1sdvb21j5u36r7t46qrnpuc1bsdfndofvo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:5rpsb2d20v7hi3dvsh699h1901gdhl853l@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:07:52 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:2n9qb2pmpfulhqffvg41u4b31m6gk4do2q@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:49:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>It's morally superior to raise livestock and provide them with decent
>>>>>>lives
>>>>>>rather than raise livestock and give the quality of their lives no
>>>>>>consideration. That is the "different issue", the one worth
>>>>>>considering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without referring to your imaginary moral browny points, try to
>>>>> explain why.
>>>>
>>>>If we raise animals and do not give consideration to the quality of
>>>>their
>>>>lives we cause animal suffering, therefore we should consider the
>>>>quality
>>>>of
>>>>their lives.
>>>
>>> Okay. Now, again without referring to your imaginary moral browny
>>> points, try to explain why we should refuse to consider how the animals
>>> themselves benefit from lives of positive value.
>>
>>We don't,
>
> Don't what?

We don't "refuse to consider how animals benefit from lives of positive
value".

> Try to explain it without your imaginary browny points.

The browny points are imaginary all right but they aren't mine. We get no
browny points for causing livestock to come into existence, it is not the
moral issue that advocates of "The Logic of the Larder" imagine.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:40:11 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied
> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied
> >>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:07:52 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied
> >>>>>news:2n9qb2pmpfulhqffvg41u4b31m6gk4do2q@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:49:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>It's morally superior to raise livestock and provide them with decent
> >>>>>>>lives
> >>>>>>>rather than raise livestock and give the quality of their lives no
> >>>>>>>consideration. That is the "different issue", the one worth
> >>>>>>>considering.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Without referring to your imaginary moral browny points, try to
> >>>>>> explain why.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If we raise animals and do not give consideration to the quality of
> >>>>>their
> >>>>>lives we cause animal suffering, therefore we should consider the
> >>>>>quality
> >>>>>of
> >>>>>their lives.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay. Now, again without referring to your imaginary moral browny
> >>>> points, try to explain why we should refuse to consider how the animals
> >>>> themselves benefit from lives of positive value.
> >>>
> >>>We don't,
> >>
> >> Don't what?
> >
> >We don't "refuse to consider how animals benefit from lives of positive
> >value".
>
> Their lives deserve as much or more consideration than their deaths.

Their lives as some morally meaningful occurrence deserve NO
consideration, Fuckwit, because their lives have no intrinsic moral
meaning. If an animal is born, Fuckwit, it is not a morally good thing
- either to the animal itself or to the universe. It is a morally
meaningless thing, in and of itself.


> >> Try to explain it without your imaginary browny points.
> >
> >The browny points are imaginary all right but they aren't mine. We get no
> >browny points for causing livestock to come into existence, it is not the
> >moral issue
>
> It's a very significant aspect of consideration

It is not significant at all. It is meaningless.


> >that advocates of "The Logic of the Larder" imagine.
>
> You still have never explained why you think it's ethically superior
> not to consider their lives, than to give them consideration.

There is nothing to consider.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b.. 

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:40:11 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:1sdvb21j5u36r7t46qrnpuc1bsdfndofvo@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:5rpsb2d20v7hi3dvsh699h1901gdhl853l@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:07:52 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2n9qb2pmpfulhqffvg41u4b31m6gk4do2q@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:49:22 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>It's morally superior to raise livestock and provide them with decent
>>>>>>>lives
>>>>>>>rather than raise livestock and give the quality of their lives no
>>>>>>>consideration. That is the "different issue", the one worth
>>>>>>>considering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without referring to your imaginary moral browny points, try to
>>>>>> explain why.
>>>>>
>>>>>If we raise animals and do not give consideration to the quality of
>>>>>their
>>>>>lives we cause animal suffering, therefore we should consider the
>>>>>quality
>>>>>of
>>>>>their lives.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. Now, again without referring to your imaginary moral browny
>>>> points, try to explain why we should refuse to consider how the animals
>>>> themselves benefit from lives of positive value.
>>>
>>>We don't,
>>
>> Don't what?
>
>We don't "refuse to consider how animals benefit from lives of positive
>value".

Their lives deserve as much or more consideration than their deaths.

>> Try to explain it without your imaginary browny points.
>
>The browny points are imaginary all right but they aren't mine. We get no
>browny points for causing livestock to come into existence, it is not the
>moral issue

It's a very significant aspect of consideration in regards to raising
them to kill.

>that advocates of "The Logic of the Larder" imagine.

You still have never explained why you think it's ethically superior
not to consider their lives, than to give them consideration.
 >> Stay informed about: FAQ: Fuckwit David Harrison's weird and dishonestly held b..