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.
2007-05-03 15:42:30 EST
On May 3, 9:13 am, Rudy Canoza the 300 lb. homo dwarf chortled some crap<rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
<Goo's nonsense obliterated>
"Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself."
"No, not that odd, Fuckwit. It's all very reasonable, and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently. "
2007-05-04 19:04:52 EST
"Rudy Canoza" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
Who the fuck cares
2007-05-07 22:37:35 EST
On Fri, 4 May 2007 19:04:52 -0400, "-Phil Clemence" <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Goo wrote in message >news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >> Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison", > >Who the fuck cares
Goo, and "aras" in general.
2007-05-14 17:05:27 EST
On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
[rant of a retard snipped]
You're all fucked up, Cornholeza.
2007-05-15 00:54:04 EST
Bawana wrote: > On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote: > > [rant of a retard snipped] > > You're
Fuck off, shitbag.
2007-05-15 12:00:46 EST
On Tue, 15 May 2007 04:54:04 GMT, Goo wrote:
>Bawana wrote: >> On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote: >> >> [rant of a retard snipped] >> >> You're all fucked up, Cornholeza. > >Fuck off, shitbag.
He is absolutely right about you, Goo.
2007-05-15 12:00:56 EST
On 14 May 2007 14:05:27 -0700, Bawana <email@example.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote: > >[rant of a retard snipped] > >You're all fucked up, Cornholeza.
He certainly is, but he likes to be called Goo.
2007-05-16 02:20:30 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, blabbered: > On Tue, 15 May 2007 04:54:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> Bawana wrote: >>> On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote: >>> >>> [rant of a retard snipped] >>> >>> You're all fucked up, Cornholeza. >> Fuck off, shitbag. > > He is
He is a shitbag, Fuckwit. So are you.
2007-05-16 14:31:12 EST
On May 14, 3:05 pm, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 3, 11:13 am, Dudy Cornholeza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote: > > [rant of a retard snipped] > > You're all fucked up, Cornholeza.
Wait till Goo and Ditch go off their meds and start their little Net Cop routine.
They'll screech at people to "turn off your caps lock!!!" "Turn on your spell checker!!!!" for a couple of days till they get back on the proper med routine.