Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison - Chasing His Own Tail For A Dozen Years

Fuckwit David Harrison - Chasing His Own Tail For A Dozen Years
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-05-11 00:50:38 EST
Fuckwit has been equivocating between existence of livestock animals -
"getting to experience life" - and the animals' welfare, or the quality
of their existence, for a dozen years.

Recently, Dutch wrote,

I oppose "taking animals lives into consideration" which is just
your fuckwitted cracker way of saying that we are allowed to take
moral credit for life itself.

In a typically fuckwitted cracker reply, Fuckwit drooled:

Meaning you're opposed to considering whether or not it's cruel TO
THEM for humans to raise them for food.


That's completely false, of course. The consideration of whether or not
it is cruel "TO THEM" [sic] to raise them for food entirely
appropriately does not place any weight on their existence /per se/.
The consideration is given to their welfare, *IF* they exist.

It is a fact that most "aras" *do* give appropriate consideration to the
welfare of livestock animals as a class, and they conclude that their
welfare is always too low to justify raising them. They do not, of
course, place any value on the animals' "getting to experience life"
/per se/, nor should they. No one should - the animals' "getting to
experience life" has no meaning. It is their welfare *if* they exist
that is morally considerable, not the mere fact of their existence.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-05-11 02:37:03 EST
On May 10, 10:50 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

<snip>


STFU Goober till you explain where the choice cuts are from the EXTRA
livestock you claim are being raised.

George Plimpton
2011-05-11 02:58:21 EST
On 5/10/2011 11:37 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On May 10, 10:50 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]

As usual.


George Plimpton
2011-05-11 14:49:15 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, criminal despised by his own family, lied:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:50:38 -0700, George Plimpton explained:
>
>> It is a fact that most "aras" *do* give appropriate consideration to the
>> welfare of livestock animals as a class, and they conclude that their
>> welfare is always too low to justify raising them.
>
> Which is not only an extremely ignorant belief

Not that you have shown, Goo - not that you *could* show, either.


>> They do not, of
>> course, place any value on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>
> That's because they ONLY care about the

It's because there's no reason to care about it. The animals' "getting
to experience life" has no moral weight to it - no meaning.


>> /per se/, nor should they. No one should -the animals' "getting to
>> experience life" has no meaning.
>
> In contrast to that lie

No, not a lie, Fuckwit. The animals' welfare, *IF* they live, has
meaning; the mere fact of them "getting to experience life" has no
meaning at all. Zero.


>> It is their welfare *if* they exist that is morally considerable, not the mere fact of their existence.
>
> I've been encouraging appreciation for when AW is successful

No, you haven't. You have been "encouraging appreciation" only for the
livestock animals' existence, but it's meaningless.

Dutch
2011-05-11 15:49:08 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:50:38 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>It is a fact that most "aras" *do* give appropriate consideration to the
>>welfare of livestock animals as a class, and they conclude that their
>>welfare is always too low to justify raising them.
>
> Which is not only an extremely ignorant belief, but also a stupid one.
> The
> idea that NO livestock have lives of positive value is just plain stupid
> and
> about as unrealistic as it's possible to be.
>
>>They do not, of
>>course, place any value on the animals' "getting to experience life"
>
> That's because they ONLY care about the fact that it disturbs them for
> other
> people to eat meat so they care nothing at all about the animals, meaning
> that
> they can't appreciate when decent AW results in lives of positive value
> for
> millions of livestock animals.

This is where you start to get it wrong, they DO care about the animals,
more than you do. By your own admission you only care about the products and
you care about taking credit for the lives the animals you eat get to
experience. (The LoL)


>>/per se/, nor should they. No one should -
>
> That's a blatant lie. In contrast to that lie, ONLY eliminationists
> have
> reason to oppose appreciating when AW is successful.

Goalpost move.

>>the animals' "getting to
>>experience life" has no meaning.
>
> In contrast to that lie is has as much or more meaning than their being
> killed.

No it doesn't. Whether you have children or you don't have children, there
is no valid moral judgment of you that can be made. Its morally meaningless.
If however you have children and decide to kill them, there *is* a moral
judgment to be made. Killing, harming, providing good welfare, all these
things are morally considerable, but they all depend on the entity existing
in the first place. Your mistake is assigning moral significance to the
entity existing. To a third party, which is what we are, there is no moral
significance to the entity existing.


>
>>It is their welfare *if* they exist
>>that is morally considerable
>
> I've been encouraging appreciation for when AW is successful, and you
> have
> been maniacally opposing it because appreciating when it is works against
> the
> misnomer.

There's that goalpost move again, "successful AW" *is* morally significant,
the entity existing or not existing is not.




George Plimpton
2011-05-11 16:21:05 EST
On 5/11/2011 2:25 PM, dh@. wrote:

> appreciation for when AW is successful,

That doesn't even mean anything.

D*@.
2011-05-11 17:25:54 EST
On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:50:38 -0700, Goo wrote:

>It is a fact that most "aras" *do* give appropriate consideration to the
>welfare of livestock animals as a class, and they conclude that their
>welfare is always too low to justify raising them.

Which is not only an extremely ignorant belief, but also a stupid one. The
idea that NO livestock have lives of positive value is just plain stupid and
about as unrealistic as it's possible to be.

>They do not, of
>course, place any value on the animals' "getting to experience life"

That's because they ONLY care about the fact that it disturbs them for other
people to eat meat so they care nothing at all about the animals, meaning that
they can't appreciate when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
millions of livestock animals.

>/per se/, nor should they. No one should -

That's a blatant lie. In contrast to that lie, ONLY eliminationists have
reason to oppose appreciating when AW is successful.

>the animals' "getting to
>experience life" has no meaning.

In contrast to that lie is has as much or more meaning than their being
killed.

>It is their welfare *if* they exist
>that is morally considerable

I've been encouraging appreciation for when AW is successful, and you have
been maniacally opposing it because appreciating when it is works against the
misnomer.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-05-12 12:14:57 EST
On May 11, 2:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 2:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > appreciation for when AW is successful,
>
> That doesn't even mean anything.

EXTRA livestock raised to meet pet food demand mean EXTRA choice cuts.

Does *that* mean anything, Goobs?

George Plimpton
2011-05-12 12:49:57 EST
On 5/12/2011 9:14 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On May 11, 2:21 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2011 2:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> appreciation for when AW is successful,
>>
>> That doesn't even mean anything.
>
> [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]

As usual.


D*@.
2011-05-12 17:11:12 EST
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote:

>On May 11, 2:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2011 2:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> > appreciation for when AW is successful,
>>
>> That doesn't even mean anything.
>
>EXTRA livestock raised to meet pet food demand mean EXTRA choice cuts.
>
>Does *that* mean anything, Goobs?

Goo is terrified. He feels SURE that there are choice cuts here:

http://is.gd/jQh14S

and here:

http://is.gd/60XbOX

and especially here:

http://is.gd/mErb39

but poor Goo is afraid he might be making another horribly stupid mistake like
with his 12 year old pet food cows, so he's afraid to say anything about it.
Notice it's the same Goober who believed in 12 year old pet food cows that also
discourages people from appreciating when decent AW successfully provides lives
of positive value for livestock, while at the same time trying to pretend to be
in favor of AW over elimination. Could Goo really be stupid enough to be in
favor of AW, even though he's been opposing appreciation for when it's
successful for over a decade? Could Goo and his boy "Dutch" *both* be that
stupid? LOL...how could *anyone* be that stupid???
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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