Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison Is Not Doing What He Thinks He's Doing Here

Fuckwit David Harrison Is Not Doing What He Thinks He's Doing Here
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Fred C. Dobbs
2010-07-04 13:10:12 EST
Fuckwit likes to pretend that he's battling dastardly "animal rights
activists"; that he's sticking up for animals, and making the case why
human use of animals is ethically acceptable.

He's doing no such thing. All he's really doing is advancing his own
special warped interpretation of tired, discredited fundamentalist
Christian dominionism. Fuckwit affects an interest in non-western
religion, which is why he cross-posts his bullshit to supposedly
zen-related and other newsgroups, but like his other nonsense, it's fake.

Fuckwit doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Fuckwit doesn't really
care about livestock animals "getting to experience life." That's just
the only way he could think of to try to pretend his consumption of meat
isn't all about him. He has been brainwashed by an influence of fake
altruism, and thinks that one must always try to find a way to
camouflage one's self-interest in a cloak of "other-directedness."
Fuckwit knows full well - because I have told him so for 11 years - that
his meat-containing diet does not "benefit" livestock animals in any
way, but because of his deeply ingrained belief (due to brainwashing)
that pursuit of self-interest is unacceptably "selfish", he is obliged
to try to cast his self-interest in seeing a continuing supply of meat
as some kind of altruistic devotion to animals' welfare. In fact, he
has no interest or "consideration" at all for animals' welfare, as his
quotes over the years have shown:

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

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 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

Fuckwit is not promoting "consideration" for farm animals, because he
has none himself. What Fuckwit is doing here is just garden-variety
fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy.

Fuckwit David Harrison is a bad, immoral person.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The Final Scene Of Apocalypse Now
2010-07-04 13:17:08 EST
On 5/07/2010 1:10 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
> Fuckwit likes to pretend that he's battling dastardly "animal rights
> activists"; that he's sticking up for animals, and making the case why
> human use of animals is ethically acceptable.
>
> He's doing no such thing. All he's really doing is advancing his own
> special warped interpretation of tired, discredited fundamentalist
> Christian dominionism. Fuckwit affects an interest in non-western
> religion, which is why he cross-posts his bullshit to supposedly
> zen-related and other newsgroups, but like his other nonsense, it's fake.
>
> Fuckwit doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Fuckwit doesn't really
> care about livestock animals "getting to experience life." That's just
> the only way he could think of to try to pretend his consumption of meat
> isn't all about him. He has been brainwashed by an influence of fake
> altruism, and thinks that one must always try to find a way to
> camouflage one's self-interest in a cloak of "other-directedness."
> Fuckwit knows full well - because I have told him so for 11 years - that
> his meat-containing diet does not "benefit" livestock animals in any
> way, but because of his deeply ingrained belief (due to brainwashing)
> that pursuit of self-interest is unacceptably "selfish", he is obliged
> to try to cast his self-interest in seeing a continuing supply of meat
> as some kind of altruistic devotion to animals' welfare. In fact, he has
> no interest or "consideration" at all for animals' welfare, as his
> quotes over the years have shown:
>
> 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
>
> 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 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
>
> Fuckwit is not promoting "consideration" for farm animals, because he
> has none himself. What Fuckwit is doing here is just garden-variety
> fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison is a bad, immoral person.
>

it's clear cut. waste him.

Mr.Smartypants
2010-07-04 14:49:08 EST
On Jul 4, 11:10 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
bared his flabby ass and farted:

<Goo's shit snipped>


Tell us about pet food, Goo.

Derek
2010-07-04 15:44:43 EST
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:10:12 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs"
<*s@earthlink.neat> wrote:

>Fuckwit likes to pretend that he's battling dastardly "animal rights
>activists"; that he's sticking up for animals, and making the case why
>human use of animals is ethically acceptable.
>
>He's doing no such thing. All he's really doing is advancing his own
>special warped interpretation of tired, discredited fundamentalist
>Christian dominionism. Fuckwit affects an interest in non-western
>religion, which is why he cross-posts his bullshit to supposedly
>zen-related and other newsgroups, but like his other nonsense, it's fake.
>
>Fuckwit doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Fuckwit doesn't really
>care about livestock animals "getting to experience life." That's just
>the only way he could think of to try to pretend his consumption of meat
>isn't all about him. He has been brainwashed by an influence of fake
>altruism, and thinks that one must always try to find a way to
>camouflage one's self-interest in a cloak of "other-directedness."
>Fuckwit knows full well - because I have told him so for 11 years - that
>his meat-containing diet does not "benefit" livestock animals in any
>way, but because of his deeply ingrained belief (due to brainwashing)
>that pursuit of self-interest is unacceptably "selfish", he is obliged
>to try to cast his self-interest in seeing a continuing supply of meat
>as some kind of altruistic devotion to animals' welfare. In fact, he
>has no interest or "consideration" at all for animals' welfare, as his
>quotes over the years have shown:
>
> 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
>
> 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 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

And here's another quote to add to your collection -

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

>Fuckwit is not promoting "consideration" for farm animals, because he
>has none himself. What Fuckwit is doing here is just garden-variety
>fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy.
>
>Fuckwit David Harrison is a bad, immoral person.

There was a time when he tried to give the impression that he did eat
according to his ethics but, as we can see by his later quotes, he was
lying.

"I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
there are several other people I know who feel the same
way."
David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3

"Since I think their sons (veal) get a life (and more
especially their end) that is especially bad, and
therefore IMO not worth living, I don't eat veal, and
I know more than one other meat eater who feels the
same way about it."
David Harrison July 8 1999 http://tinyurl.com/3xsxo3z

"To me the method of raising veal--who are always
confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal."
David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od


Fred C. Dobbs
2010-07-04 17:14:19 EST
On 7/4/2010 12:44 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:10:12 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs"
> <fred.c.dobbs@earthlink.neat> wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit likes to pretend that he's battling dastardly "animal rights
>> activists"; that he's sticking up for animals, and making the case why
>> human use of animals is ethically acceptable.
>>
>> He's doing no such thing. All he's really doing is advancing his own
>> special warped interpretation of tired, discredited fundamentalist
>> Christian dominionism. Fuckwit affects an interest in non-western
>> religion, which is why he cross-posts his bullshit to supposedly
>> zen-related and other newsgroups, but like his other nonsense, it's fake.
>>
>> Fuckwit doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Fuckwit doesn't really
>> care about livestock animals "getting to experience life." That's just
>> the only way he could think of to try to pretend his consumption of meat
>> isn't all about him. He has been brainwashed by an influence of fake
>> altruism, and thinks that one must always try to find a way to
>> camouflage one's self-interest in a cloak of "other-directedness."
>> Fuckwit knows full well - because I have told him so for 11 years - that
>> his meat-containing diet does not "benefit" livestock animals in any
>> way, but because of his deeply ingrained belief (due to brainwashing)
>> that pursuit of self-interest is unacceptably "selfish", he is obliged
>> to try to cast his self-interest in seeing a continuing supply of meat
>> as some kind of altruistic devotion to animals' welfare. In fact, he
>> has no interest or "consideration" at all for animals' welfare, as his
>> quotes over the years have shown:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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 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
>
> And here's another quote to add to your collection -
>
> "I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
> to make the effort."
> David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

That's an excellent addition to the FAQ. Thank you for digging it up.


>
>> Fuckwit is not promoting "consideration" for farm animals, because he
>> has none himself. What Fuckwit is doing here is just garden-variety
>> fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison is a bad, immoral person.
>
> There was a time when he tried to give the impression that he did eat
> according to his ethics but, as we can see by his later quotes, he was
> lying.
>
> "I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
> there are several other people I know who feel the same
> way."
> David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
>
> "Since I think their sons (veal) get a life (and more
> especially their end) that is especially bad, and
> therefore IMO not worth living, I don't eat veal, and
> I know more than one other meat eater who feels the
> same way about it."
> David Harrison July 8 1999 http://tinyurl.com/3xsxo3z
>
> "To me the method of raising veal--who are always
> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal."
> David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od

What a bag of shit! Of course, he happily consumes the products that
give rise to veal, i.e. dairy products. Forgoing the veal is hardly an
example of being "more" ethical, when he's still helping cause the
animals to be born and "get to experience life" - a life that he
acknowledges is of "negative value".


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

Derek
2010-07-05 12:22:45 EST
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:14:19 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs"
<*s@earthlink.neat> wrote:

>On 7/4/2010 12:44 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:10:12 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs"
>> <fred.c.dobbs@earthlink.neat> wrote:
>>
>>> Fuckwit likes to pretend that he's battling dastardly "animal rights
>>> activists"; that he's sticking up for animals, and making the case why
>>> human use of animals is ethically acceptable.
>>>
>>> He's doing no such thing. All he's really doing is advancing his own
>>> special warped interpretation of tired, discredited fundamentalist
>>> Christian dominionism. Fuckwit affects an interest in non-western
>>> religion, which is why he cross-posts his bullshit to supposedly
>>> zen-related and other newsgroups, but like his other nonsense, it's fake.
>>>
>>> Fuckwit doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Fuckwit doesn't really
>>> care about livestock animals "getting to experience life." That's just
>>> the only way he could think of to try to pretend his consumption of meat
>>> isn't all about him. He has been brainwashed by an influence of fake
>>> altruism, and thinks that one must always try to find a way to
>>> camouflage one's self-interest in a cloak of "other-directedness."
>>> Fuckwit knows full well - because I have told him so for 11 years - that
>>> his meat-containing diet does not "benefit" livestock animals in any
>>> way, but because of his deeply ingrained belief (due to brainwashing)
>>> that pursuit of self-interest is unacceptably "selfish", he is obliged
>>> to try to cast his self-interest in seeing a continuing supply of meat
>>> as some kind of altruistic devotion to animals' welfare. In fact, he
>>> has no interest or "consideration" at all for animals' welfare, as his
>>> quotes over the years have shown:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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 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
>>
>> And here's another quote to add to your collection -
>>
>> "I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
>> to make the effort."
>> David Harrison 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy
>
>That's an excellent addition to the FAQ. Thank you for digging it up.

You're welcome.

>>> Fuckwit is not promoting "consideration" for farm animals, because he
>>> has none himself. What Fuckwit is doing here is just garden-variety
>>> fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison is a bad, immoral person.
>>
>> There was a time when he tried to give the impression that he did eat
>> according to his ethics but, as we can see by his later quotes, he was
>> lying.
>>
>> "I don't eat veal, because of the way that it is raised, and
>> there are several other people I know who feel the same
>> way."
>> David Harrison 5 June 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37bxwk3
>>
>> "Since I think their sons (veal) get a life (and more
>> especially their end) that is especially bad, and
>> therefore IMO not worth living, I don't eat veal, and
>> I know more than one other meat eater who feels the
>> same way about it."
>> David Harrison July 8 1999 http://tinyurl.com/3xsxo3z
>>
>> "To me the method of raising veal--who are always
>> confined, until they are finally forced up the ramp of
>> a truck (being barely able to support their own weight,
>> often being injured in the process) and then taken to be
>> killed--is very bad, so I don't eat veal."
>> David Harrison 23 July 1999 http://tinyurl.com/37ot8od
>
>What a bag of shit! Of course, he happily consumes the products that
>give rise to veal, i.e. dairy products. Forgoing the veal is hardly an
>example of being "more" ethical, when he's still helping cause the
>animals to be born and "get to experience life" - a life that he
>acknowledges is of "negative value".

Exactly. And to make matters even worse he criticises vegetarians for
thinking all beef animals are raised in the same way and for avoiding their
products on that basis. Surely, if queef Harrison can forgo veal based on
the assumption that all veal animals are raised in an inhumane way,
vegetarians are just as free to omit products from beef animals on the
basis that they're all raised in an inhumane way. But no, he's a hypocrite
who sets a low standard of behaviour for himself while setting a higher one
for vegetarians.

Another point worth bringing up here is his failure to take any
responsibility for the deaths caused by his meat consumption. During a
conversation about cats with "Scented Nectar" about 5 years ago, I remember
that rejected his own responsibility for the deaths he causes by eating
meat but gladly accepted responsibility for the deaths caused by his cat.

"I'm not actually responsible for the deaths caused by meat I
eat, but I am responsible for the deaths of animals who died
because I let the cat get at them."
David Harrison 4 Feb 2005 http://tinyurl.com/39wc9rx

Bizarre, but the point I'm trying to make here is, if he rejects the notion
that he's responsible for the deaths he causes by his diet on animals, I
fail to see how he can reasonably claim responsibility for their lives.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron