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

FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs (posted As Needed)
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-02-20 14:22:21 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.






























Ron
2006-02-23 19:57:43 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:


<attempt by Goober to sneak away foiled>


What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?

Get back on topic you lunatic.

We're not done kickin' your sorry ass.

LOL!!!


Leif Erikson
2006-02-23 20:09:44 EST
shrieking flamboyant homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton IMPOTENTLY
screamed:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?

Nothing, you fat pimply queer.


Ron
2006-02-23 20:16:55 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> shrieking flamboyant homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton IMPOTENTLY
> screamed:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> > till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
>
> Nothing, you fat pimply queer.


Please tell us more about the cattle who are fed and watered for 12
years until they are sold at the lowest price for beef there is,namely
PET FOOD.

Explain the economic dynamics that make it profitable for people to
keep feeding an animal for 12 years before the animal generates *any*
revenue.

We're eager to learn Goo.

Don't deny us more of your 'high value items'.


LOL!!!


Leif Erikson
2006-02-23 20:35:19 EST
flamboyant fairy ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton IMPOTENTLY screamed:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > shrieking flamboyant homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton IMPOTENTLY
> > screamed:
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > > What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> > > till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
> >
> > Nothing, you fat pimply queer.
>
>
> Please tell us more

You're a screaming flamboyant queer, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. There's nothing
more to tell than that.


D*@.
2006-02-24 11:48:18 EST
On 23 Feb 2006 17:16:55 -0800, "Ron" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> shrieking flamboyant homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton IMPOTENTLY
>> screamed:
>> > Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >
>> > What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
>> > till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
>>
>> Nothing, you fat pimply queer.
>
>
>Please tell us more about the cattle who are fed and watered for 12
>years until they are sold at the lowest price for beef there is,namely
>PET FOOD.
>
>Explain the economic dynamics that make it profitable for people to
>keep feeding an animal for 12 years before the animal generates *any*
>revenue.
>
>We're eager to learn Goo.

Didn't this same clown boast about his education? If so, why
can't the inept Goober provide any info about his mysterious
dog chow cows?

>Don't deny us more of your 'high value items'.

Didn't this same buffoon boast about his knowledge of
economics or some such thing? If so, how could such an
"educated" Goober be unable to explain how raising
cattle for dog food is a practical thing to do, even for
only 6 years per cow much less 12?

D*@.
2006-02-24 11:55:10 EST
On 23 Feb 2006 16:57:43 -0800, "Ron" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
><attempt by Goober to sneak away foiled>
>
>
>What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
>till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
>
>Get back on topic you lunatic.
>
>We're not done kickin' your sorry ass.
>
>LOL!!!

The truth almost always kicks Goo's ass. There are examples
with this too. Goo is as clear and obvious proof of his own lies
as anyone needs:

"He believes they [unborn "future farm animals"] can experience
things - loss, deprivation, unfairness" - Goo

but Goo let's us know specifically that he's aware I don't believe
they exist before conception in a tangible sense:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
<*1@earthlink.NS.net>

in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
<*6@mindspring.NS.com>

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The question again--as almost always with this particular Goober--is:

why does he consistently lie?

Leif Erikson
2006-02-24 13:40:50 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, fat pimply homosexual in Buford, GA, switched
positions and began blowing ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton:

> impotent homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton squealed:
>
> >
> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >
> ><attempt by Goober to sneak away foiled>
> >
> >
> >What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> >till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
> >
> >Get back on topic you lunatic.
> >
> >We're not done kickin' your sorry ass.
> >
> >LOL!!!
>
> The truth

I show you the truth, Fuckwit. The truth is, you believe a vast amount
of weird, irrational, illogical BULLSHIT about animals. I educated the
public about your weird beliefs.


Ron
2006-02-24 19:20:18 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, fat pimply homosexual in Buford, GA, switched
> positions and began blowing ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton:
>
> > impotent homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton squealed:
> >
> > >
> > >Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > ><attempt by Goober to sneak away foiled>
> > >
> > >
> > >What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> > >till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
> > >
> > >Get back on topic you lunatic.
> > >
> > >We're not done kickin' your sorry ass.
> > >
> > >LOL!!!
> >
> > The truth
>
> I show you the truth, Fuckwit. The truth is, you believe a vast amount
> of weird, irrational, illogical BULLSHIT about animals. I educated the
> public about your weird beliefs.



Please "educate" us about where the profit lies in feeding a cow for
TWELVE years before being able to sell it at the going rate for PET
FOOD.

What are they paying now Goo.............about $0.09 per lb?


Leif Erikson
2006-02-24 19:33:40 EST
impotent homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton
IMPOTENTLY squealed:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Fuckwit David Harrison, fat pimply homosexual in Buford, GA, switched
> > positions and began blowing ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton:
> >
> > > impotent homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton squealed:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ><attempt by Goober to sneak away foiled>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >What the hell does this have to do with cattle being bred and raised
> > > >till they're 12 years old and then being turned into pet food?
> > > >
> > > >Get back on topic you lunatic.
> > > >
> > > >We're not done kickin' your sorry ass.
> > > >
> > > >LOL!!!
> > >
> > > The truth
> >
> > I show you the truth, Fuckwit. The truth is, you believe a vast amount
> > of weird, irrational, illogical BULLSHIT about animals. I educated the
> > public about your weird beliefs.
>
>
>
> Please "educate" us about where the profit lies in feeding a cow for
> TWELVE years before being able to sell it at the going rate for PET
> FOOD.

Why wouldn't it be profitable, ronnnnnnnnnnie? Why would anyone build
a factory to make Kias, when they could build a factory to make
something comparable to Mercedes-Benz? Why would anyone make Timex
watches when they could make something as good as a Rolex?

How does The Bay Co. make a profit selling so much cheap shit to
down-market Canucks like you, ronnnnnnnnnnnie?

Why do you spend so much effort trying to be stupid,
ronnnnnnnnnnnnnnie? Who was on top last night, ronnnnnnnnnnnnnnie -
Fuckwit or you?

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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