Vegetarian Discussion: The Amusing Idiocy Of Goo Revisited

The Amusing Idiocy Of Goo Revisited
Posts: 60

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   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2007-02-01 13:27:17 EST
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

Rudy Canoza
2007-02-01 13:38:52 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 and
quotation marks, is Fuckwit's own.



You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
start on this at all:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999



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 claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
utilitarian to Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005


Astonishingly, Fuckwit even fantasizes that he can
"respect" the extinguished, thus non-existent, lives of
dead animals:

I can say that I respect the life of a dead
chicken.

Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006


In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
only interested in the products they yield:

Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006


Another revealing dialogue:

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006


He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
ignore their suffering is an admission that he
*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
products they yield.


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.





































P*@hotmail.com
2007-02-02 16:22:03 EST
On Feb 1, 10:27 am, dh@. wrote:
> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
> any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>
> "Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>
> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
> benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
> benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
> "I have examined the question at length, and feel
> there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
> is not a benefit." - Goo
>
> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Goo
>
> "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>
> "Non human animals experience neither pride nor
> disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
> to feel either." - Goo
>
> "Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
> saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
> hallucinating." - Goo
>
> "The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
> the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo
>
> "Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>
> "No animals anticipate." - Goo
>
> "Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
> the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo
>
> "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
>
> "They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo
>
> "Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
> going to be used entirely for human consumption,
> entirely for animal consumption, or for some
> combination; nor do they care." - Goo
>
> "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
> pet food. " - Goo
>
> "I'm right about all of it." - Goo
> "I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
> "my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
> "Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
> "I'm not stupid." - Goo
> "I know exactly what I think" - Goo
> "I educated the public" - Goo
> "I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
> "You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

How sad. Maybe low intelligence is part of the problem here.


D*@.
2007-02-03 23:02:12 EST
On 2 Feb 2007 13:22:03 -0800, pinnochiojones@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Feb 1, 10:27 am, dh@. wrote:
>> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
>> any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>>
>> "Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>>
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>> benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
>> benefit from farming." - Goo
. . .

>> "I'm right about all of it." - Goo
>> "I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
>> "my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
>> "Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
>> "I'm not stupid." - Goo
>> "I know exactly what I think" - Goo
>> "I educated the public" - Goo
>> "I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
>> "You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo
>
>How sad. Maybe low intelligence is part of the problem here.

Indeed. This Goober is a moron who thinks he's a genius,
as a Google search for "Goobernicus Gonad" will clearly show.

D*@.
2007-02-04 14:07:31 EST
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:38:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:

>You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
>start on this at all:

It's because you "aras" are so dishonest Goob. Amusingly,
to you that's something to be admired while others of us are
offended by it.

> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> post my spew as everyone else does.
> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>
>
>
>Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>morally considerable "somethings":

So do you "aras" Goober.

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do." - Goo

Why do you think consumers should neglect to give them as
much consideration as you "aras" do Goo, have you any clue?

> 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 claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
>"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't.

LOL...because I do Goober, and you "aras" hate
that too:

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
. . .

>He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
>the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:
>
> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
> because I don't care about them at all, but I
> would just ignore their suffering.
> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>
>This last is astonishing:

You're just confused by every aspect of everything
involved here Goo...like a possum trying to figure out
a dairy farm.

>admitting that he would
>ignore their suffering is an admission that he
>*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
>products they yield.

No, you poor Goober. It's saying that I would
generally ignore it as you do the animals who die
for your veggies, and the wood and paper products
you use, and the electricity...for the roads people
drive you around on Goo, and what buildings you
are allowed to enter... It's time ( it's way past time
actually) to face and accept the fact that vegans
contribute to animal deaths in most of the same
ways that everybody else does Goob, and you
just ignore them like everybody else does too.
Give up your denial you sad Goober, and finally
accept the truth.
. . .

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

No Goo, what I pointed out is that they were
fortunate to live *in that respect*:

> *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

which doesn't necessarily mean that their lives are
of sufficient quality to give them positive value. You
"aras" can't consider how life could ever be of
positive value to ANY livestock *regardless* of quality:

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

so you are obviously necessarily incapable of comprehending
any distinction between when they are and when they're not.
You can't even imagine how someone else could think about
it, so of course you are necessarily bewildered and confused
by anything having to do with the subject, Goo:

"Giving ANY consideration to the morally meaningless
fact that they "get to experience life" is insane." - Goo

which means that trying to consider specific details about this
aspect you can't even comprehend, is necessarily far beyond
any ability that your tiny crumb of "brain" might have, making
everything relating to it nothing but baffling confusion for you.
. . .

>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.

And that you do Goo, but you can't do it, so you "aras" really
haven't provided anything to consider...in all these years Goober
you "aras" STILL have given no reason for anyone to believe that
the elimination of livestock is ethically superior to providing decent
AW...to deliberately providing lives of positive value.

I have directly asked you more than once for whom or what it
would be better not to raise animals to eat, and what lameness you
"aras" were been able to come up with is to insist that:

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if
humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense.
There's your answer." - Goo

but that's just a change of subject Goob. It certainly doesn't answer
what is probably the most significant question of all, my Goober, plus
it also throws you "aras" right in the same boat with everybody else
when we consider that "humans kill animals they don't need to kill,
i.e. not in self defense" to provide you with things that you like, and
things that you willingly contribute to. Try to accept the truth, Goo.

Rudy Canoza
2007-02-04 14:56:01 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:38:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
>> start on this at all:
>
> It's because

It's because you are a low-time-value stupid cracker
who is to stupid to know that you don't have enough
talent to persuade intelligent people to accept your
lies at face value.


>> I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
>> presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
>> post my spew as everyone else does.
>> Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
>>
>>
>>
>> Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
>> morally considerable "somethings":
>
> So do you

No.



>> 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 claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
>> "consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't.
>
> LOL...because I do

No, you don't.


>> He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
>> the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible
>> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
>> because I don't care about them at all, but I
>> would just ignore their suffering.
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
>>
>> This last is astonishing:
>
> You're just confused

No one is confused about your stupid, childish beliefs
about animals, Fuckwit.


>> admitting that he would
>> ignore their suffering is an admission that he
>> *DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
>> products they yield.
>
> No,

Yes, you lying Fuckwit. You do not care about the
animals' lives, and you never did. You simply thought,
stupidly and wrongly, that it was a good cover for you,
since you were incapable of showing without resorting
to childish myth that one can ethically consume animal
products.


>
>> 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
>
> which doesn't necessarily mean that their lives are
> of sufficient quality to give them positive value.

YOU, Fuckwit, believe that the mere fact of their
"getting to experience life" justifies anything done to
them.


>> 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.
>
> And that you do

No. Your belief is so illogical and so many times
shown to be nonsense that no one needs to demonstrate
the superiority of anything in relation to your weird,
fuckwitted belief.

D*@.
2007-02-05 12:20:59 EST
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, still confused, our Goober wrote:

>*h@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, poor confounded Goo wrote:
>>
>>> This last is astonishing:
>>
>> You're just confused
>
>No one is confused about your stupid, childish beliefs
>about animals, Fuckwit.

Goo, you "aras" have no clue at all about such beliefs.
You can't even grasp the most basic parts, much less
consider more complicated details. Most pathetic of all
Goober is that you yourself have such beliefs, yet you
still can't understand them. Your veggies result in suffering
and death for many animals, yet you don't care about and
probably often even deny the fact.

I'll respond to some of your other absurd lies in a new
thread under the considerably more appropriate heading:

What does "animal rights" have to offer? Apparently nothing.

Arthur Machen
2007-02-17 06:55:57 EST
don't care about either sides argument...But would find it ironic and
completely fulfilling humorously so anyway if this guy bumped into a
cannibal...say someone like Jeffrey Dahmer and got the same BS put tah
him before dinner....Oh I don't dislike you or want to cause you pain
but i'm hungry and your existence is really besides the
point....hehehehe


Rudy Canoza
2007-02-17 12:58:05 EST
dh@.. wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2007 03:55:57 -0800, "Arthur Machen" <dragon76water@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> don't care about either sides argument...But would find it ironic and
>> completely fulfilling humorously so anyway if this guy bumped into a
>> cannibal...say someone like Jeffrey Dahmer and got the same BS put tah
>> him before dinner....
>
> That doesn't really apply to any of it. I point out that vegans
> contribute to the same wildlife deaths as everyone else by their
> own diet, their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads
> and buildings etc. All they try to avoid are things which provide
> both life

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals.


FUCKWIT'S BELIEFS

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 and
quotation marks, is Fuckwit's own.



You really have to wonder why Fuckwit even bothered to
start on this at all:

I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999



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 claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
utilitarian to Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005


Astonishingly, Fuckwit even fantasizes that he can
"respect" the extinguished, thus non-existent, lives of
dead animals:

I can say that I respect the life of a dead
chicken.

Fuckwit David Harrison - 29 May 2006


In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
only interested in the products they yield:

Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006


Another revealing dialogue:

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

Fuckwit:
Not really.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006


He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
ignore their suffering is an admission that he
*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
products they yield.


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*@..
2007-02-18 00:09:39 EST
On 17 Feb 2007 03:55:57 -0800, "Arthur Machen" <dragon76water@hotmail.com> wrote:

>don't care about either sides argument...But would find it ironic and
>completely fulfilling humorously so anyway if this guy bumped into a
>cannibal...say someone like Jeffrey Dahmer and got the same BS put tah
>him before dinner....

That doesn't really apply to any of it. I point out that vegans
contribute to the same wildlife deaths as everyone else by their
own diet, their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads
and buildings etc. All they try to avoid are things which provide
both life and death for billions of farm animals, but they do
contribute to them to some extent by contributing to things which
involve animal by-products like: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Glass,
Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation,
Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin,
Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives... I also
point out that people can *not!* contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle by being vegan, but only by being
more conscientious consumers of animal products. Vegan/"ar"
types very much hate seeing such facts pointed out, and don't
want them considered by anyone because they suggest some
things--like deliberately providing lives of positive value and
humane deaths for livestock, i.e. decent animal welfare--could
be considered ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination
of domestic animals, i.e. the gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
Since they can't oppose facts like that even though they
desperately wish they could, people like Goo instead resort
to insisting that no one give them any consideration.

"First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value
to any animal, including humans." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

>Oh I don't dislike you or want to cause you pain
>but i'm hungry and your existence is really besides the
>point....hehehehe

That's exactly the attitude vegans often display
when their contribution to animal deaths is pointed
out...though sometimes they act even worse by
trying to deny them.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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