Vegetarian Discussion: Fuckwit David Harrison's Fundamental Failure

Fuckwit David Harrison's Fundamental Failure
Posts: 90

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 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-06-28 10:00:26 EST
Fuckwit believes he has caught "aras" in a great logic trap, but he
hasn't. Fuckwit wants to pretend there is a glaring inconsistency in
the implication of an extreme animal rights position for livestock
animal husbandry. There is no inconsistency: the fact that an extreme
animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights, does not contain
any inconsistency at all.

The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights, among
which the right not to be killed for human use. If the only reason
domestic livestock animals are bred into existence in the first place is
for us to kill and consume them, then the implication is that such
animal husbandry must not occur. There is no inconsistency in that.
The concept of animal rights does not imply that there "ought" to be
domestic livestock animals existing so that the rights may be enjoyed.
It is a conditional proposition: *IF* animals exist, then they have rights.

Everyone else gets this, even those who initially are fooled by
Fuckwit's goofy nonsense about animals "benefiting" from "getting to
experience life." Fuckwit is the only one who doesn't get it, or
pretends not to get it.

Dutch
2011-06-28 15:21:10 EST
"George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote
> Fuckwit believes he has caught "aras" in a great logic trap, but he
> hasn't. Fuckwit wants to pretend there is a glaring inconsistency in the
> implication of an extreme animal rights position for livestock animal
> husbandry. There is no inconsistency: the fact that an extreme animal
> rights position means there should be no domestic livestock animals, and
> therefore no animals to enjoy the rights, does not contain any
> inconsistency at all.
>
> The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights, among
> which the right not to be killed for human use. If the only reason
> domestic livestock animals are bred into existence in the first place is
> for us to kill and consume them, then the implication is that such animal
> husbandry must not occur. There is no inconsistency in that. The concept
> of animal rights does not imply that there "ought" to be domestic
> livestock animals existing so that the rights may be enjoyed. It is a
> conditional proposition: *IF* animals exist, then they have rights.
>
> Everyone else gets this, even those who initially are fooled by Fuckwit's
> goofy nonsense about animals "benefiting" from "getting to experience
> life." Fuckwit is the only one who doesn't get it, or pretends not to get
> it.

Well put.

He's not pretending, I'm convinced he's just really, really, mind-bogglingly
stupid.

Incidentally, Ron Hamilton should respond that he agrees completely with
your post. He won't of course, he only talks about pet food.


George Plimpton
2011-06-28 15:41:14 EST
On 6/28/2011 12:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote
>> Fuckwit believes he has caught "aras" in a great logic trap, but he
>> hasn't. Fuckwit wants to pretend there is a glaring inconsistency in
>> the implication of an extreme animal rights position for livestock
>> animal husbandry. There is no inconsistency: the fact that an extreme
>> animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>> animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights, does not
>> contain any inconsistency at all.
>>
>> The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights,
>> among which the right not to be killed for human use. If the only
>> reason domestic livestock animals are bred into existence in the first
>> place is for us to kill and consume them, then the implication is that
>> such animal husbandry must not occur. There is no inconsistency in
>> that. The concept of animal rights does not imply that there "ought"
>> to be domestic livestock animals existing so that the rights may be
>> enjoyed. It is a conditional proposition: *IF* animals exist, then
>> they have rights.
>>
>> Everyone else gets this, even those who initially are fooled by
>> Fuckwit's goofy nonsense about animals "benefiting" from "getting to
>> experience life." Fuckwit is the only one who doesn't get it, or
>> pretends not to get it.
>
> Well put.
>
> He's not pretending, I'm convinced he's just really, really,
> mind-bogglingly stupid.
>
> Incidentally, Ron Hamilton should respond that he agrees completely with
> your post. He won't of course, he only talks about pet food.

He should respond to agree, but he doesn't have the intellectual
integrity to do that.

Dutch
2011-06-29 15:47:37 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:00:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>the fact that an extreme
>>animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>>animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights
>
> That fact reveals the gross misnomer Goob.

No it doesn't. If there were no livestock or domesticated animals, as those
extreme ARAs desire, then animals would still exist, and those animals would
be the ones to which "animal rights" would ostensibly apply.

> . . .
>>The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights
>
> Which rights do PeTA provide for the dogs and cats they acquire, Goo?

Not the point, we are in agreement that ARAs are hypocrites and their agenda
is fantastic and unrealistic. The point he's making is that there is no
inherent contradiction between "animal rights" and the elimination of
domestic animals. That's a false charge, a misrepresentation.


George Plimpton
2011-06-29 18:03:03 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison lied:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:00:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit believes he has caught "aras" in a great logic trap, but he hasn't. Fuckwit wants to pretend there is a glaring inconsistency in the implication of an extreme animal rights position for livestock animal husbandry. There is no inconsistency: the fact that an extreme animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights, does not contain any inconsistency at all.
>>
>> The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights, among which the right not to be killed for human use. If the only reason domestic livestock animals are bred into existence in the first place is for us to kill and consume them, then the implication is that such animal husbandry must not occur. There is no inconsistency in that. The concept of animal rights does not imply that there "ought" to be domestic livestock animals existing so that the rights may be enjoyed. It is a conditional proposition: *IF* animals exist, then they have rights.
>>
>> Everyone else gets this, even those who initially are fooled by Fuckwit's goofy nonsense about animals "benefiting" from "getting to experience life." Fuckwit is the only one who doesn't get it, or pretends not to get it.
>
> That fact reveals the

Respond to the whole post, or don't respond at all.

D*@.
2011-06-29 18:16:22 EST
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:00:26 -0700, Goo wrote:

>the fact that an extreme
>animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights

That fact reveals the gross misnomer Goob.
. . .
>The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights

Which rights do PeTA provide for the dogs and cats they acquire, Goo?

George Plimpton
2011-06-30 12:17:09 EST
On 6/28/2011 12:21 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "George Plimpton" <george@si.not> wrote
>> Fuckwit believes he has caught "aras" in a great logic trap, but he
>> hasn't. Fuckwit wants to pretend there is a glaring inconsistency in
>> the implication of an extreme animal rights position for livestock
>> animal husbandry. There is no inconsistency: the fact that an extreme
>> animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>> animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights, does not
>> contain any inconsistency at all.
>>
>> The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights,
>> among which the right not to be killed for human use. If the only
>> reason domestic livestock animals are bred into existence in the first
>> place is for us to kill and consume them, then the implication is that
>> such animal husbandry must not occur. There is no inconsistency in
>> that. The concept of animal rights does not imply that there "ought"
>> to be domestic livestock animals existing so that the rights may be
>> enjoyed. It is a conditional proposition: *IF* animals exist, then
>> they have rights.
>>
>> Everyone else gets this, even those who initially are fooled by
>> Fuckwit's goofy nonsense about animals "benefiting" from "getting to
>> experience life." Fuckwit is the only one who doesn't get it, or
>> pretends not to get it.
>
> Well put.
>
> He's not pretending, I'm convinced he's just really, really,
> mind-bogglingly stupid.
>
> Incidentally, Ron Hamilton should respond that he agrees completely with
> your post. He won't of course, he only talks about pet food.

As you accurately predicted, Douchebag Ron Hamilton has been mute,
despite the fact that he should agree fully with what I wrote about
Fuckwit's mischaracterization of AR.

Dutch
2011-06-30 15:30:54 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:jlsp0711tppr8ke0mfms71djpaericvj2g@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:47:37 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:00:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>the fact that an extreme
>>>>animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>>>>animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights
>>>
>>> That fact reveals the gross misnomer Goob.
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>
> It sure does.

Nope, not at all. It is the *classification* called "livestock" that they
want eliminated so that "animals" in_general would then have rights (or so
they believe). I think that notion is fatally flawed but not for the reason
you're presenting.

>>If there were no livestock or domesticated animals, as those
>>extreme ARAs desire, then animals would still exist, and those animals
>>would
>>be the ones to which "animal rights" would ostensibly apply.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights
>>>
>>> Which rights do PeTA provide for the dogs and cats they acquire, Goo?
>>
>>Not the point,
>
> LOL! Goo lied about "the point" he claimed was true. If their position
> was
> that animals who exist have rights, they wouldn't kill them. Duh.

As I said, they're hypocrites, by necessity, but that doesn't make their
position a "misnomer".



George Plimpton
2011-06-30 16:39:18 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:03:03 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

>> Respond to the whole post, or don't respond at all.
>
> In a J

Respond to the whole post, or don't respond at all.

D*@.
2011-06-30 18:05:06 EST
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:47:37 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:00:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>the fact that an extreme
>>>animal rights position means there should be no domestic livestock
>>>animals, and therefore no animals to enjoy the rights
>>
>> That fact reveals the gross misnomer Goob.
>
>No it doesn't.

It sure does.

>If there were no livestock or domesticated animals, as those
>extreme ARAs desire, then animals would still exist, and those animals would
>be the ones to which "animal rights" would ostensibly apply.
>
>> . . .
>>>The animal rights position is that animals who exist have rights
>>
>> Which rights do PeTA provide for the dogs and cats they acquire, Goo?
>
>Not the point,

LOL! Goo lied about "the point" he claimed was true. If their position was
that animals who exist have rights, they wouldn't kill them. Duh.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)


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