| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Leif Erikson" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2006 12:39:56 PM |
| Object: |
FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
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.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 12:45:26 PM |
|
|
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: (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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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;
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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>
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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..."
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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:
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 12:50:59 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 01:04:56 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 11:31:50 PM |
|
|
I see you cross posted this crap in:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.philosophy,
rec.boats
And thats how we got so lucky!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 02:58:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I see you cross posted this crap in:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.philosophy,
rec.boats
And thats how we got so lucky!
Eat ***** and bark at the moon, whiner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 11:37:23 AM |
|
|
Leif Erikson wrote:
tschnautz@gmail.com wrote:
I see you cross posted this crap in:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.philosophy,
rec.boats
And thats how we got so lucky!
Eat ***** and bark at the moon, whiner.
What? and take your job?
NEVER!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit Leif Erikson's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 05:00:16 AM |
|
|
This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the ***** eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it :)
gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:
Nobody likes me because I ***** my dead grandmother up the *****.
This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother fucker :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Sorry for the inconvenience - Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 05:08:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I see you cross posted this crap in:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.philosophy,
rec.boats
And thats how we got so lucky!
Sorry for the inconvenience but I am only making the meat industry
shill Leif Erikson (one of many aliases and forgeries) eat hit own dirt
and forgeries. It is taking longer because he seems to like it but it
will pass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 02:26:37 PM |
|
|
<dh@.> 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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: (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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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;
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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>
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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..."
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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:
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 03:07:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:26:37 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
<dh@.> 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?
Goo ("Jonathan" etc...) uses several styles of dishonest. In his supposed FAQ
we see a number of examples of outright lies. He also forges other people's
names to his posts which is another type of dishonesty, and of course lies
about doing that. He also pretends to be different characters which is another
form of dishonesty, for example Goo pretends to be the following and more:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
19 Jan 2006 12:38:33 PM |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:adbts1tclej8fo676f21b95lkbkl3p42s9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:26:37 -0800, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
<dh@.> 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?
Goo ("Jonathan" etc...) uses several styles of dishonest. In his supposed
FAQ
we see a number of examples of outright lies. He also forges other
people's
names to his posts which is another type of dishonesty, and of course lies
about doing that. He also pretends to be different characters which is
another
form of dishonesty, for example Goo pretends to be the following and more:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
All the same to me, just another sucka that is easy to humiliate and run
off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
19 Jan 2006 12:46:23 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
<dh@.> wrote in message news:adbts1tclej8fo676f21b95lkbkl3p42s9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:26:37 -0800, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
<dh@.> 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?
Goo ("Jonathan" etc...) uses several styles of dishonest. In his supposed
FAQ
we see a number of examples of outright lies. He also forges other
people's
names to his posts which is another type of dishonesty, and of course lies
about doing that. He also pretends to be different characters which is
another
form of dishonesty, for example Goo pretends to be the following and more:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
All the same to me, just another sucka that is easy to humiliate
Ha ha ha ha ha! Not even close, punkie - not even close.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
19 Jan 2006 01:35:57 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:38Rzf.10101$ZA2.6858@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Immortalist wrote:
<dh@.> wrote in message
news:adbts1tclej8fo676f21b95lkbkl3p42s9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:26:37 -0800, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
<dh@.> 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?
Goo ("Jonathan" etc...) uses several styles of dishonest. In his supposed
FAQ
we see a number of examples of outright lies. He also forges other
people's
names to his posts which is another type of dishonesty, and of course
lies
about doing that. He also pretends to be different characters which is
another
form of dishonesty, for example Goo pretends to be the following and
more:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb292sb@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
All the same to me, just another sucka that is easy to humiliate
Ha ha ha ha ha! Not even close, punkie - not even close.
See what I mean. I can make you keep coming back because I am that dam good.
No, fuckwit doggie. *I* am that good: I got you to
drop the façade and storm off in a huff before, and
I'll do it again.
The fact is, little fuckwit doggie, that you CAN'T
resist Fuckwit's trolls. He crossposts this ***** to
alt.philosophy, and JUST like Pavlov's dog, you
react...and react, and react some more. Heh heh heh
heh heh...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 12:53:41 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 02:27:55 PM |
|
|
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
18 Jan 2006 03:05:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:27:55 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:V2bzf.1110$rH5.1081@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
dh@. wrote:
Jonathan Ball is the most dishonest person I have
ever encountered.
No one has "lied" about your beliefs, Fuckwit.
Are you saying that no people are people that have lied about such beliefs
or does no one mean you if you are the reference of the assertion?
He's lying when he says no one has lied. And since he is certainly
someone who has lied about my beliefs very often, he is lying in
reference to himself as well as lying about other people who have lied.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 02:24:12 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:0Sazf.1096$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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 02:39:05 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:0Sazf.1096$rH5.535@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison" or 'dh@',
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
What would be the necessary conditions for showing that it is not the case
that you have lied about his beliefs?
I don't have to show that at all. Fuckwit David Harrison has to show
that I have. He can't: I haven't lied.
You're a pseudo-philosopher. We've seen you here lots of times before,
when Fuckwit sociopathically cross-posts his bullsthit to
alt.philosophy, and you, because you are a reactive sophist who can't
resist temptation no matter how venal, decide to try to show us how
brilliant you (think you) are. *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 03:08:35 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137530344.985055.199000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Immortalist wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:0Sazf.1096$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. *****.
Sounds like reaction to the bitter memories you have of the many defeats you
have suffered at my hands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 03:14:00 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
"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$rH5.535@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison" or 'dh@',
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
What would be the necessary conditions for showing that it is not the
case
that you have lied about his beliefs?
I don't have to show that at all. Fuckwit David Harrison has to show
that I have. He can't: I haven't lied.
Are you saying that you didn't lie about his beliefs?
Yes.
What evidence does
this person have that you lied about his beliefs?
None.
What would be the necessary conditions for showing that you lied about his
beliefs if you did lie about his beliefs?
Some evidence of it.
You're a pseudo-philosopher. We've seen you here lots of times before,
when Fuckwit sociopathically cross-posts his bullsthit to
alt.philosophy, and you, because you are a reactive sophist who can't
resist temptation no matter how venal, decide to try to show us how
brilliant you (think you) are. *****.
Sounds like reaction to the bitter memories you have of the many defeats you
have suffered at my hands.
Nope; that hasn't happened. What happened was, I've seen you here
before, and you're a *****-4-braincell sophist. *****. Just don't
reply to anything appearing in a thread started by Fuckwit David
Harrison (dh@) and you won't suffer from the abuse of your more
practical-minded betters. Now *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
17 Jan 2006 03:27:56 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137532440.481894.233060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Immortalist wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137530344.985055.199000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Immortalist wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:0Sazf.1096$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?
Yes.
What evidence does
this person have that you lied about his beliefs?
None.
What would be the necessary conditions for showing that you lied about
his
beliefs if you did lie about his beliefs?
Some evidence of it.
As long as he cannot show any evidence you are entitled to you assumption of
innocence.
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. *****.
Sounds like reaction to the bitter memories you have of the many defeats
you
have suffered at my hands.
Nope; that hasn't happened. What happened was, I've seen you here
before, and you're a *****-4-braincell sophist. *****. Just don't
reply to anything appearing in a thread started by Fuckwit David
Harrison (dh@) and you won't suffer from the abuse of your more
practical-minded betters. Now *****.
Logically that seems to be a fallacious argument and doesn't show what it
argues for. There is the name calling which doesn't seem to add much
evidence, or is that what the state of evidence has evolved to in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and talk.politics.animals. Its as if you
throw down your fist and say thats why something is true or in that trivial
amount of times when you were right the name calling is supposed to add
something else also. It also indicates a desire on your part to unfairness
since if someone doeasn't want to resort to name calling and cursing you
will not compromise. Already I doubt the worth of what you say. If it is a
name calling and swearing contest you are proposing I might decline because
I don't see the worth of this. Much easier to defeat your weak logical
skills in the hope of improving the things that go for logic these days.
As for responding or not to particular posts, you should not respond to what
I say if you already know how bad I will cripple your arguments and
argumentative abilities, even if its the other person's fault for
crossposting it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed) |
| | | | | | |
