Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison: No Case

Fuckwit David Harrison: No Case
Posts: 44

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-06-21 16:05:01 EST
Fuckwit has wasted 12 years trying to make a moral accusation against
"aras" stick, but it has been utterly futile. Not only has he not made
anything stick, he hasn't even made a valid and coherent accusation.

He blabbers endlessly about the failure of "aras" to give moral
consideration to the lives of livestock animals - that is, to the
potential lives of livestock animals that don't exist - but he has never
said why the potential lives of not-yet-existing livestock animals are
due any moral consideration in the first place. In addition, Fuckwit
believes there is only one morally correct conclusion one might reach
from such consideration - that those livestock animal lives "ought" to
occur - but he can't even begin to explain why that conclusion is right.

So:

* Fuckwit can't say why the potential lives of not-yet-existing
livestock animals are due any moral consideration

* Fuckwit can't say why the only morally correct conclusion from
giving consideration to those potential lives is that the lives
"ought" to occur


In one of the cruelest ironies, I believe virtually all "aras" in fact
/have/ given moral consideration to the potential lives of future
livestock animals, even though there is no ethical obligation to do so.
They reach a diametrically opposite conclusion from Fuckwit: they
conclude that those lives *ought not* occur. Fuckwit quite simply is
wrong when he categorically accuses "aras" of failing to consider the
lives of livestock animals.

Of course, we have long seen from many things he has written that
Fuckwit only pays hypocritical lip service, at best, to the notion of
"decent lives" for livestock animals. In fact, he has written numerous
times saying that he doesn't care about animal welfare at all. His
belaboring of "decent lives" for livestock animals is really just a
crappy camouflage for his real motivation: *life*, of any quality, for
livestock animals. Fuckwit wants those animals to continue to be bred
into existence so he can eat them. *All* Fuckwit cares about is the
products. If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or
recycled newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply
than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in
switching to the synthetic stuff. It's the product, not the lives that
yielded it, that is Fuckwit's sole interest in any of this. He only
feigns moral concern for the lives.

Fuckwit has no case, and he has done barely a half-assed cracker job of
trying to fool anyone into thinking he has one. What a fuckwit.

Dutch
2011-06-21 17:55:39 EST
"George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote

> If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or recycled
> newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and physically
> indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply than raising
> livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in switching to
> the synthetic stuff.

This story made me think of Fuckwit, since he so closely resembles human
feces.

Human feces: The meat of the future?
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/323196/human-feces-the-meat-future



George Plimpton
2011-06-21 18:45:20 EST
On 6/21/2011 2:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote
>
>> If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or recycled
>> newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
>> physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more
>> cheaply than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an
>> instant in switching to the synthetic stuff.
>
> This story made me think of Fuckwit, since he so closely resembles human
> feces.
>
> Human feces: The meat of the future?
> http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/323196/human-feces-the-meat-future
>

Fuckwit already eats that. Don't forget: "you are what you eat."

This serious contribution brought to you by the American Tofu Council.

Rupert
2011-06-21 19:40:23 EST
On Jun 22, 6:05 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> Fuckwit has wasted 12 years trying to make a moral accusation against
> "aras" stick, but it has been utterly futile.  Not only has he not made
> anything stick, he hasn't even made a valid and coherent accusation.
>
> He blabbers endlessly about the failure of "aras" to give moral
> consideration to the lives of livestock animals - that is, to the
> potential lives of livestock animals that don't exist - but he has never
> said why the potential lives of not-yet-existing livestock animals are
> due any moral consideration in the first place.  In addition, Fuckwit
> believes there is only one morally correct conclusion one might reach
> from such consideration - that those livestock animal lives "ought" to
> occur - but he can't even begin to explain why that conclusion is right.
>
> So:
>
>    * Fuckwit can't say why the potential lives of not-yet-existing
>      livestock animals are due any moral consideration
>
>    * Fuckwit can't say why the only morally correct conclusion from
>      giving consideration to those potential lives is that the lives
>      "ought" to occur
>
> In one of the cruelest ironies, I believe virtually all "aras" in fact
> /have/ given moral consideration to the potential lives of future
> livestock animals, even though there is no ethical obligation to do so.
>   They reach a diametrically opposite conclusion from Fuckwit:  they
> conclude that those lives *ought not* occur.  Fuckwit quite simply is
> wrong when he categorically accuses "aras" of failing to consider the
> lives of livestock animals.
>
> Of course, we have long seen from many things he has written that
> Fuckwit only pays hypocritical lip service, at best, to the notion of
> "decent lives" for livestock animals.  In fact, he has written numerous
> times saying that he doesn't care about animal welfare at all.  His
> belaboring of "decent lives" for livestock animals is really just a
> crappy camouflage for his real motivation:  *life*, of any quality, for
> livestock animals.  Fuckwit wants those animals to continue to be bred
> into existence so he can eat them.  *All* Fuckwit cares about is the
> products.  If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or
> recycled newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
> physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply
> than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in
> switching to the synthetic stuff.  It's the product, not the lives that
> yielded it, that is Fuckwit's sole interest in any of this.  He only
> feigns moral concern for the lives.
>
> Fuckwit has no case, and he has done barely a half-assed cracker job of
> trying to fool anyone into thinking he has one.  What a fuckwit.

Why did you start a thread with exactly the same OP as another thread
you started in recent memory? Did you perhaps think some
intellectually edifying points would come up in this one that hadn't
been discussed so far?

Mr.Smartypants
2011-06-22 11:36:12 EST
On Jun 21, 5:40 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:05 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fuckwit has wasted 12 years trying to make a moral accusation against
> > "aras" stick, but it has been utterly futile.  Not only has he not made
> > anything stick, he hasn't even made a valid and coherent accusation.
>
> > He blabbers endlessly about the failure of "aras" to give moral
> > consideration to the lives of livestock animals - that is, to the
> > potential lives of livestock animals that don't exist - but he has never
> > said why the potential lives of not-yet-existing livestock animals are
> > due any moral consideration in the first place.  In addition, Fuckwit
> > believes there is only one morally correct conclusion one might reach
> > from such consideration - that those livestock animal lives "ought" to
> > occur - but he can't even begin to explain why that conclusion is right.
>
> > So:
>
> >    * Fuckwit can't say why the potential lives of not-yet-existing
> >      livestock animals are due any moral consideration
>
> >    * Fuckwit can't say why the only morally correct conclusion from
> >      giving consideration to those potential lives is that the lives
> >      "ought" to occur
>
> > In one of the cruelest ironies, I believe virtually all "aras" in fact
> > /have/ given moral consideration to the potential lives of future
> > livestock animals, even though there is no ethical obligation to do so.
> >   They reach a diametrically opposite conclusion from Fuckwit:  they
> > conclude that those lives *ought not* occur.  Fuckwit quite simply is
> > wrong when he categorically accuses "aras" of failing to consider the
> > lives of livestock animals.
>
> > Of course, we have long seen from many things he has written that
> > Fuckwit only pays hypocritical lip service, at best, to the notion of
> > "decent lives" for livestock animals.  In fact, he has written numerous
> > times saying that he doesn't care about animal welfare at all.  His
> > belaboring of "decent lives" for livestock animals is really just a
> > crappy camouflage for his real motivation:  *life*, of any quality, for
> > livestock animals.  Fuckwit wants those animals to continue to be bred
> > into existence so he can eat them.  *All* Fuckwit cares about is the
> > products.  If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or
> > recycled newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
> > physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply
> > than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in
> > switching to the synthetic stuff.  It's the product, not the lives that
> > yielded it, that is Fuckwit's sole interest in any of this.  He only
> > feigns moral concern for the lives.
>
> > Fuckwit has no case, and he has done barely a half-assed cracker job of
> > trying to fool anyone into thinking he has one.  What a fuckwit.
>
> Why did you start a thread with exactly the same OP as another thread
> you started in recent memory? Did you perhaps think some
> intellectually edifying points would come up in this one that hadn't
> been discussed so far?-


It's probable that Goo thinks it's his one and only "meaningful
contribution" so he wants to get as much mileage out of it as
possible.


D*@.
2011-06-23 18:03:39 EST
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 21, 5:40 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 6:05 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Fuckwit has wasted 12 years trying to make a moral accusation against
>> > "aras" stick, but it has been utterly futile.  Not only has he not made
>> > anything stick, he hasn't even made a valid and coherent accusation.
>>
>> > He blabbers endlessly about the failure of "aras" to give moral
>> > consideration to the lives of livestock animals - that is, to the
>> > potential lives of livestock animals that don't exist - but he has never
>> > said why the potential lives of not-yet-existing livestock animals are
>> > due any moral consideration in the first place.  In addition, Fuckwit
>> > believes there is only one morally correct conclusion one might reach
>> > from such consideration - that those livestock animal lives "ought" to
>> > occur - but he can't even begin to explain why that conclusion is right.
>>
>> > So:
>>
>> >    * Fuckwit can't say why the potential lives of not-yet-existing
>> >      livestock animals are due any moral consideration
>>
>> >    * Fuckwit can't say why the only morally correct conclusion from
>> >      giving consideration to those potential lives is that the lives
>> >      "ought" to occur
>>
>> > In one of the cruelest ironies, I believe virtually all "aras" in fact
>> > /have/ given moral consideration to the potential lives of future
>> > livestock animals, even though there is no ethical obligation to do so.
>> >   They reach a diametrically opposite conclusion from Fuckwit:  they
>> > conclude that those lives *ought not* occur.  Fuckwit quite simply is
>> > wrong when he categorically accuses "aras" of failing to consider the
>> > lives of livestock animals.
>>
>> > Of course, we have long seen from many things he has written that
>> > Fuckwit only pays hypocritical lip service, at best, to the notion of
>> > "decent lives" for livestock animals.  In fact, he has written numerous
>> > times saying that he doesn't care about animal welfare at all.  His
>> > belaboring of "decent lives" for livestock animals is really just a
>> > crappy camouflage for his real motivation:  *life*, of any quality, for
>> > livestock animals.  Fuckwit wants those animals to continue to be bred
>> > into existence so he can eat them.  *All* Fuckwit cares about is the
>> > products.  If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or
>> > recycled newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
>> > physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply
>> > than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in
>> > switching to the synthetic stuff.  It's the product, not the lives that
>> > yielded it, that is Fuckwit's sole interest in any of this.  He only
>> > feigns moral concern for the lives.
>>
>> > Fuckwit has no case, and he has done barely a half-assed cracker job of
>> > trying to fool anyone into thinking he has one.  What a fuckwit.
>>
>> Why did you start a thread with exactly the same OP as another thread
>> you started in recent memory? Did you perhaps think some
>> intellectually edifying points would come up in this one that hadn't
>> been discussed so far?-
>
>
>It's probable that Goo thinks it's his one and only "meaningful
>contribution" so he wants to get as much mileage out of it as
>possible.

Goo has claimed that his lies about my beliefs are "needed". He's afraid to
say what he's afraid might happen if people begin to appreciate when AW is
successful, but we know what he's afraid of anyway. He's afraid people might get
the idea that lives of positive value for livestock could be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination. Goo makes it clear he is very
afraid of that happening.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-06-24 02:07:56 EST
On Jun 23, 4:03 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 21, 5:40 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 6:05 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> > Fuckwit has wasted 12 years trying to make a moral accusation against
> >> > "aras" stick, but it has been utterly futile. Not only has he not made
> >> > anything stick, he hasn't even made a valid and coherent accusation.
>
> >> > He blabbers endlessly about the failure of "aras" to give moral
> >> > consideration to the lives of livestock animals - that is, to the
> >> > potential lives of livestock animals that don't exist - but he has never
> >> > said why the potential lives of not-yet-existing livestock animals are
> >> > due any moral consideration in the first place. In addition, Fuckwit
> >> > believes there is only one morally correct conclusion one might reach
> >> > from such consideration - that those livestock animal lives "ought" to
> >> > occur - but he can't even begin to explain why that conclusion is right.
>
> >> > So:
>
> >> > * Fuckwit can't say why the potential lives of not-yet-existing
> >> > livestock animals are due any moral consideration
>
> >> > * Fuckwit can't say why the only morally correct conclusion from
> >> > giving consideration to those potential lives is that the lives
> >> > "ought" to occur
>
> >> > In one of the cruelest ironies, I believe virtually all "aras" in fact
> >> > /have/ given moral consideration to the potential lives of future
> >> > livestock animals, even though there is no ethical obligation to do so.
> >> > They reach a diametrically opposite conclusion from Fuckwit: they
> >> > conclude that those lives *ought not* occur. Fuckwit quite simply is
> >> > wrong when he categorically accuses "aras" of failing to consider the
> >> > lives of livestock animals.
>
> >> > Of course, we have long seen from many things he has written that
> >> > Fuckwit only pays hypocritical lip service, at best, to the notion of
> >> > "decent lives" for livestock animals. In fact, he has written numerous
> >> > times saying that he doesn't care about animal welfare at all. His
> >> > belaboring of "decent lives" for livestock animals is really just a
> >> > crappy camouflage for his real motivation: *life*, of any quality, for
> >> > livestock animals. Fuckwit wants those animals to continue to be bred
> >> > into existence so he can eat them. *All* Fuckwit cares about is the
> >> > products. If technology were developed that could turn soybeans or
> >> > recycled newspaper into "meat" that was qualitatively superior to, and
> >> > physically indistinguishable from, animal flesh, and do it more cheaply
> >> > than raising livestock animals, Fuckwit would not hesitate an instant in
> >> > switching to the synthetic stuff. It's the product, not the lives that
> >> > yielded it, that is Fuckwit's sole interest in any of this. He only
> >> > feigns moral concern for the lives.
>
> >> > Fuckwit has no case, and he has done barely a half-assed cracker job of
> >> > trying to fool anyone into thinking he has one. What a fuckwit.
>
> >> Why did you start a thread with exactly the same OP as another thread
> >> you started in recent memory? Did you perhaps think some
> >> intellectually edifying points would come up in this one that hadn't
> >> been discussed so far?-
>
> >It's probable that Goo thinks it's his one and only "meaningful
> >contribution" so he wants to get as much mileage out of it as
> >possible.
>
>     Goo has claimed that his lies about my beliefs are "needed". He's afraid to
> say what he's afraid might happen if people begin to appreciate when AW is
> successful, but we know what he's afraid of anyway. He's afraid people might get
> the idea that lives of positive value for livestock could be considered
> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination. Goo makes it clear he is very
> afraid of that happening.-


It's obvious Goo is afraid of a lot of things lately.


George Plimpton
2011-06-24 03:04:39 EST
On 6/23/2011 11:07 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:

> [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]

As usual.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-06-24 04:14:25 EST
On Jun 24, 1:04 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 11:07 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]
>
> As usual.

How many years do you think EXTRA turkeys are raised before they are
plopped into cat food cans, Goo?

George Plimpton
2011-06-24 09:37:04 EST
On 6/24/2011 1:14 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:04 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 11:07 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> [pointless bullshit from Douchebag Ron Hamilton]
>>
>> As usual.
>
> [pointless bullshit fro Douchebag Ron Hamilton]

As usual.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


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