Vegetarian Discussion: FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted As Needed)

FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted As Needed)
Posts: 177

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 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-01-17 13:39:56 EST
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David
Harrison" or 'dh@',
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Fuckwit - 03/22/2005


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.






























D*@.
2006-01-17 13:45:26 EST
Jonathan Ball is the most dishonest person I have
ever encountered. His lies should be quite obvious to
anyone who examines the following material, though it
is extremely boring.

>Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
>has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
>thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
>have correctly interpreted his writing.

No. Lie #1.

>His beliefs
>about animals, specifically his belief that animals
>"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
>*in and of itself*, is something that appears
>frequently and with (believe it or not) clarity.
>
>Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
>usenet rantings over a two and a half year period, and
>judge for yourselves.
>
>All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
>Fuckwit's own.
>
>
>
>Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>morally considerable "somethings":
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

"ARAs" also consider them morally considerable
somethings, and want to prevent them from existing.
_________________________________________________________
Message-ID: <3D04298F.1070101@earthlink.NS.net>
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Don't forget, meat is a plant based food.
10 Jun 2002 04:23:54 GMT

"Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Burger King Uncowed
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: jonball52@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, Fuckwith
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There's no reason to avoid giving them as much moral
consideration as people who are making that proposal.

>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

As I've admitted on many many occasions, that
was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent
beings can experience anything. Ball knows it as
well:
_________________________________________________________
Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Appreciate some help to understand.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:14:41 -0700

in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception;
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Fuckwit's big problem
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:54:36 GMT

This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Wilson Woods <liberal1976@aol.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy
Subject: Re: Why is Fuckwit David Harrison unable to understand elementary
truths?
Message-ID: <j19sc.6505$Tn6.1713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:51:11 GMT

Something that isn't alive cannot benefit, AS
YOU'VE SAID, Fuckwit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Here's more of the quote:
_________________________________________________________
From: David (dh_ld@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: animal welfare poem
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Date: 2000/08/01
[...]
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The next two quotes were not mistakes, and they
do not suggest that I believe nothing can "experience"
anything. Lie #2.

> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
>
>He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
>live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
>quality of their lives:
>
> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
> Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
>
> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
> since the odds are infinite against all of us
> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

I believe life can have a negative value as well
as a positive value...which I've said many times:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: contemplative affections
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:56:23 GMT
Message-ID: <3C7526B6.6030501@mindspring.NS.com>

dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:

> Experiencing positive emotions gives life a positive value, and
> experiencing negative emotions gives it a negative value, imo.

But you can't say how or why. This is a religious
belief of yours.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Message-ID: <3C67EF8E.6010308@mindspring.NS.com>
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Fuckwit's big chance
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:21:35 GMT

Do *not* write your usual crapola about "life can have
a positive or negative blah blah blah..."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What I was referring to (in case anyone reads this sad
mess) is:

1. All things who are born are lucky in the respect that
they are conceived at all--since any of the other
thousand+ sperm in the conception competition would
have produced a *different* being.

2. They are lucky in the respect that they complete
development and are born successfully, since that is
not the case for all beings who are conceived.

The quality of their lives if they are born determines
whether that life would be worth living or not. Lie #3.

>He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
>the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
>prevent them from being born:
>
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]

What I pointed out is true, and does not suggest
that preventing future animals from being born actually
hurts "anything"--which in this case is nothing. Lie #4.

>Fuckwit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
>about their lives is what matters:
>
> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters, and in order
> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
> ignore the things that we know, and that they
> do not (like the fact that they will be
> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
> do that, then they really don't care about the
> animals, but are worried more about their self.
> Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
>
>
>But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
>about them, about his connection to them, about his
>ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
>to him:
>
> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
> well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
> about things. Even if it were that way, there
> is really no reason for me to encourage life
> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
> of kittens that could get to experience life
> from a cat that I actually care about, and
> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
> least for a little while.
> Fuckwit - 09/23/1999

Our interests and those of the animals are different
things. Who can't consider both? Lie #5.

>Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
>with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
>interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
>period, irrespective of the quality of that life.

That's a lie, as I showed above. (see Lie #3)

>And
>he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

I don't even understand how it could be evil, much
less believe that it is. (see Lie #4)

>No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
>"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
>lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
>as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
>bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.
>
>The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
> No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs.

Lie #6.

>Fuckwit
>believes everything I have said he believes,

Lie #7.

>as
>supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.

No. As distorted by the person who I consider to be
the most dishonest that I have ever encountered.

The question still remains: Why would anyone be so
desperate to promote such lies?

_________________________________________________________
From: dh_ld@nomail.com
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Beating Nitwit to the punch
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:42:48 GMT
Message-ID: <3bc762f0.307912356@news.mindspring.com>

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:37:18 +0100, "firstoftwins" <firstoftwins@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Who or what gave you the right to end his days unnecessarily?

Nothing. What gives you the right to want to deprive them of
having what life they could have? Or to promote the death of
animals in crop production, or paper and wood production, or
road and building construction, or the generation of power, etc?
Meat consumption contributes to life as well as death. Veg*nism
only contributes to death. Those are all probably points that you
don't want to think about, but I think about them.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Leif Erikson
2006-01-17 13:50:59 EST
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Fuckwit - 03/22/2005


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.





























Leif Erikson
2006-01-17 13:53:41 EST
dh@. wrote:

> Jonathan Ball is the most dishonest person I have
> ever encountered.

No one has "lied" about your beliefs, Fuckwit. You
*do* believe everything in the FAQ. You're an
irrational, lying homosexual living in Buford, GA (just
the *name* "Buford" says you're a fuckwitted redneck),
and you have extremely bizarre, superstitious beliefs
about animals. You are ignorant lout.

Leif Erikson
2006-01-17 14:04:56 EST
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Fuckwit - 03/22/2005


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.































Immortalist
2006-01-17 15:24:12 EST

"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:0Sazf.1096$rH5.535@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison" or 'dh@',
> has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.

What would be the necessary conditions for showing that it is not the case
that you have lied about his beliefs? If he claims such and then you have to
prove otherwise then he has duped you into accepting a fallacious shifting
of the burden of proof onto you when it is common knowledge that the one who
asserts must defend and this function isn't to be outsourced to the like of
you.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the
wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is
taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof
actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.
This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on
side B.

Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This
side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the
other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be
true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining
which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling
this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden
of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is
assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on
the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is
placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden
of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic
powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate
system."

Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the
treasury."

Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."

Jill: "What is your proof?"

Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic
powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
> thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
> have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
> about animals, specifically his belief that animals
> "getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
> in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
> and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.
>
> Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
> usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
> and judge for yourselves.
>
> All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
> Fuckwit's own.
>
>
>
> Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
> morally considerable "somethings":
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
>
> He believes they can experience things - loss,
> deprivation, unfairness:
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>
>
> He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
> live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
> quality of their lives:
>
> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
> Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
>
> All of that has nothing to do with how many
> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
> since the odds are infinite against all of us
> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>
> Then I guess raising billions of animals for
> food provides billions of beings with a place in
> eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
> some of it.
> Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
>
> But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
> for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
> for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
> more so, since we provide life for most of the
> animals we kill.
> Fuckwit - 04/20/2002
>
> Life is the benefit that makes all others
> possible.
> Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)
>
> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> most important benefits for any being. Though
> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> animals are completely different things and not
> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> depending on the particular things that they
> experience.
> Fuckwit - 03/22/2005
>
>
> Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
> to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
> se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
> that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
> earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:
>
> As for whether or not providing them with life
> is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
> no one has ever had a problem with it.
> Fuckwit - 10/12/2003
>
>
> He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
> the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
> prevent them from being born:
>
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>
> That approach is illogical, since if it
> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
> getting to have any life at all.
> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
>
>
> Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters:
>
> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
> about their lives is what matters, and in order
> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
> ignore the things that we know, and that they
> do not (like the fact that they will be
> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
> do that, then they really don't care about the
> animals, but are worried more about their self.
> Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
>
>
> But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
> about them, about his connection to them, about his
> ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
> to him:
>
> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
> well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
> about things. Even if it were that way, there
> is really no reason for me to encourage life
> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
> of kittens that could get to experience life
> from a cat that I actually care about, and
> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
> least for a little while.
> Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
>
>
> At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
> what life has to offer [to animals].
> Fuckwit - 05/06/2004
>
>
> Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
> insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
> how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
> ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
> them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
> with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
> interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
> period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
> he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
>
> No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
> "proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
> lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
> to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
> choice that he does.
>
> The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
> No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
> believes everything I have said he believes, as
> supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Immortalist
2006-01-17 15:26:37 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:apeqs118d03ckikhn82ncjevdjh2fn3ecc@4ax.com...
> Jonathan Ball is the most dishonest person I have
> ever encountered.

Do you mean the most dishonest style out of possible styles of disonesty or
are you lumping honesty into one bag for a special purpose?

> His lies should be quite obvious to
> anyone who examines the following material, though it
> is extremely boring.
>
>>Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
>>has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
>> I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
>>thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
>>have correctly interpreted his writing.
>
> No. Lie #1.
>
>>His beliefs
>>about animals, specifically his belief that animals
>>"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
>>*in and of itself*, is something that appears
>>frequently and with (believe it or not) clarity.
>>
>>Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
>>usenet rantings over a two and a half year period, and
>>judge for yourselves.
>>
>>All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
>>Fuckwit's own.
>>
>>
>>
>>Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>>morally considerable "somethings":
>>
>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
> "ARAs" also consider them morally considerable
> somethings, and want to prevent them from existing.
> _________________________________________________________
> Message-ID: <3D04298F.1070101@earthlink.NS.net>
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Subject: Re: Don't forget, meat is a plant based food.
> 10 Jun 2002 04:23:54 GMT
>
> "Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Subject: Re: Burger King Uncowed
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
>
> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products.
> That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> _________________________________________________________
> From: jonball52@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
> Newsgroups:
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
> Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse,
> Fuckwith
> Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700
>
> People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
> aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
> animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> There's no reason to avoid giving them as much moral
> consideration as people who are making that proposal.
>
>>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>>deprivation, unfairness:
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
>
> As I've admitted on many many occasions, that
> was a mistake in that I don't believe nonexistent
> beings can experience anything. Ball knows it as
> well:
> _________________________________________________________
> Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@earthlink.NS.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
> Subject: Re: Appreciate some help to understand.
> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:14:41 -0700
>
> in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
> believe the animals exist before conception;
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
> Subject: Fuckwit's big problem
> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 20:54:36 GMT
>
> This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
> mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
> sense - no one ever suggested it did
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Wilson Woods <liberal1976@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy
> Subject: Re: Why is Fuckwit David Harrison unable to understand elementary
> truths?
> Message-ID: <j19sc.6505$Tn6.1713@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:51:11 GMT
>
> Something that isn't alive cannot benefit, AS
> YOU'VE SAID, Fuckwit.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> Here's more of the quote:
> _________________________________________________________
> From: David (dh_ld@yahoo.com)
> Subject: Re: animal welfare poem
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
> Date: 2000/08/01
> [...]
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
> nothing prevents that from happening, that would
> experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
> I don't believe that the individual animals exist
> in any way before they are conceived, but I am
> also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
> as a result of the farming industry if nothing
> (like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
> is a major aspect to take into consideration.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> The next two quotes were not mistakes, and they
> do not suggest that I believe nothing can "experience"
> anything. Lie #2.
>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>> them from getting to live at all.
>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>>
>>
>>He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
>>live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
>>quality of their lives:
>>
>> *Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
>> it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
>> Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
>>
>> All of that has nothing to do with how many
>> actually get to live. But that is why I feel
>> that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
>> in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
>> since the odds are infinite against all of us
>> that *we* will actually get to experience life.
>> Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
>
> I believe life can have a negative value as well
> as a positive value...which I've said many times:
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
> Subject: Re: contemplative affections
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:56:23 GMT
> Message-ID: <3C7526B6.6030501@mindspring.NS.com>
>
> dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> Experiencing positive emotions gives life a positive value, and
>> experiencing negative emotions gives it a negative value, imo.
>
> But you can't say how or why. This is a religious
> belief of yours.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> _________________________________________________________
> Message-ID: <3C67EF8E.6010308@mindspring.NS.com>
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@mindspring.NS.com>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Subject: Fuckwit's big chance
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:21:35 GMT
>
> Do *not* write your usual crapola about "life can have
> a positive or negative blah blah blah..."
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> What I was referring to (in case anyone reads this sad
> mess) is:
>
> 1. All things who are born are lucky in the respect that
> they are conceived at all--since any of the other
> thousand+ sperm in the conception competition would
> have produced a *different* being.
>
> 2. They are lucky in the respect that they complete
> development and are born successfully, since that is
> not the case for all beings who are conceived.
>
> The quality of their lives if they are born determines
> whether that life would be worth living or not. Lie #3.
>
>>He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
>>the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
>>prevent them from being born:
>>
>> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
>> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
>> have IMO.
>> Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
>>
>> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
>> future farm animals [of] living,
>> Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
>>
>> That approach is illogical, since if it
>> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
>> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
>> getting to have any life at all.
>> Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
>>
>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>> them from getting to live at all.
>> Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
>> [like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
>
> What I pointed out is true, and does not suggest
> that preventing future animals from being born actually
> hurts "anything"--which in this case is nothing. Lie #4.
>
>>Fuckwit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
>>about their lives is what matters:
>>
>> But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
>> discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
>> with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
>> about their lives is what matters, and in order
>> to get some idea of what that is, we have to
>> ignore the things that we know, and that they
>> do not (like the fact that they will be
>> killed). If a person is not willing to try to
>> do that, then they really don't care about the
>> animals, but are worried more about their self.
>> Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
>>
>>
>>But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
>>about them, about his connection to them, about his
>>ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
>>to him:
>>
>> Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
>> well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
>> [kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
>> every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
>> a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
>> ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
>> one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
>> about things. Even if it were that way, there
>> is really no reason for me to encourage life
>> for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
>> of kittens that could get to experience life
>> from a cat that I actually care about, and
>> kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
>> least for a little while.
>> Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
>
> Our interests and those of the animals are different
> things. Who can't consider both? Lie #5.
>
>>Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>>them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
>>with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
>>interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
>>period, irrespective of the quality of that life.
>
> That's a lie, as I showed above. (see Lie #3)
>
>>And
>>he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
>
> I don't even understand how it could be evil, much
> less believe that it is. (see Lie #4)
>
>>No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
>>"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
>>lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
>>as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
>>bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.
>>
>>The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
>> No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs.
>
> Lie #6.
>
>>Fuckwit
>>believes everything I have said he believes,
>
> Lie #7.
>
>>as
>>supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
>
> No. As distorted by the person who I consider to be
> the most dishonest that I have ever encountered.
>
> The question still remains: Why would anyone be so
> desperate to promote such lies?
>
> _________________________________________________________
> From: dh_ld@nomail.com
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
> Subject: Re: Beating Nitwit to the punch
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:42:48 GMT
> Message-ID: <3bc762f0.307912356@news.mindspring.com>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:37:18 +0100, "firstoftwins"
> <firstoftwins@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>Who or what gave you the right to end his days unnecessarily?
>
> Nothing. What gives you the right to want to deprive them of
> having what life they could have? Or to promote the death of
> animals in crop production, or paper and wood production, or
> road and building construction, or the generation of power, etc?
> Meat consumption contributes to life as well as death. Veg*nism
> only contributes to death. Those are all probably points that you
> don't want to think about, but I think about them.
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd



Immortalist
2006-01-17 15:27:55 EST

"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:V2bzf.1110$rH5.1081@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Ball is the most dishonest person I have
>> ever encountered.
>
> No one has "lied" about your beliefs, Fuckwit.

Are you saying that no people are people that have lied about such beliefs
or does no one mean you if you are the reference of the assertion?

> You *do* believe everything in the FAQ. You're an irrational, lying
> homosexual living in Buford, GA (just the *name* "Buford" says you're a
> fuckwitted redneck), and you have extremely bizarre, superstitious beliefs
> about animals. You are ignorant lout.



Leif Erikson
2006-01-17 15:39:05 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:0Sazf.1096$rH5.535@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison" or 'dh@',
> > has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
>
> What would be the necessary conditions for showing that it is not the case
> that you have lied about his beliefs?

I don't have to show that at all. Fuckwit David Harrison has to show
that I have. He can't: I haven't lied.

You're a pseudo-philosopher. We've seen you here lots of times before,
when Fuckwit sociopathically cross-posts his bullsthit to
alt.philosophy, and you, because you are a reactive sophist who can't
resist temptation no matter how venal, decide to try to show us how
brilliant you (think you) are. Fuck off.


Immortalist
2006-01-17 16:08:35 EST

"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137530344.985055.199000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Immortalist wrote:
>> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:0Sazf.1096$rH5.535@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison" or 'dh@',
>> > has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
>>
>> What would be the necessary conditions for showing that it is not the
>> case
>> that you have lied about his beliefs?
>
> I don't have to show that at all. Fuckwit David Harrison has to show
> that I have. He can't: I haven't lied.
>

Are you saying that you didn't lie about his beliefs? What evidence does
this person have that you lied about his beliefs?

What would be the necessary conditions for showing that you lied about his
beliefs if you did lie about his beliefs?

> You're a pseudo-philosopher. We've seen you here lots of times before,
> when Fuckwit sociopathically cross-posts his bullsthit to
> alt.philosophy, and you, because you are a reactive sophist who can't
> resist temptation no matter how venal, decide to try to show us how
> brilliant you (think you) are. Fuck off.
>

Sounds like reaction to the bitter memories you have of the many defeats you
have suffered at my hands.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


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