XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt
food.vegan.science
From: dereknash@groupmail.com
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:
>Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goober - mangled some more quotes into
>pseudo-quotes and lied:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:02:15 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
>>>>> , for example, "giving them life does NOT
>>>>> mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
>>>>> ARA
>>>>> mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
>>>>> strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that
killing
>>>>> farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.
>>>>
>>>> He let us know that he does,
>
>No, Goo. What I wrote said exactly the opposite, Goo. Everyone knows
>it, Goo, including you.
>
>
>>>
>>> No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
>>> within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind.
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the
>> stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> ""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
>> of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests."
>
>That's a mangled pseudo-quote, of course. Here's the full statement:
>
> "aras" confront him with a truth that Fuckwit cannot address:
> that Fuckwit's consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>
>
>You had to mangle it in order to try to lie, Fuckwit, but as usual you
>were caught and defeated.
>
>
>>
>>> He is saying
>>> that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
>>> believe system.
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
>True.
>
>> "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. "
>
>Another mangled, out-of-context pseudo-quote from Fuckwit, THE Goober.
>In fact, that statement was given as an answer, with some additional
>words that you unethically removed, to a fuckwitted question you posed,
>Fuckwit (is there any other kind from you?):
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goober:
> I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would be
> better not to raise animals to eat.
>
> Wilson Woods:
> They answer, "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.
>
>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>Goober, it was someone telling you what "aras" say. But being an
>unethical fighting-dog breeder, you had to mangle it unethically. You
>lose again, Fuckwit: You always lose.
>
>>
>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>> results from killing them."
>
>Actual statement:
>
> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>
>
>You unethically edited again, fighting-dog-breeder Fuckwit.
>
>
>>
>>> He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
>>> except you knows that.
>>
>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>> consideration, and gets it."
>>
>> "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
>> exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>> "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
>> as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>>
>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
>> killing them." - "Dutch"
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
>> life." - Dutch
>
>Out-of-context quote. Full text:
>
> You cannot explain why anyone who consumes animal products should
> think that it's anything special that they promote livestock to
> "experience life". Every consumer choice promotes animals to
> experience life. Consuming grain promotes life, and death.
> Abstaining from meat promotes animal life other than livestock.
> When you single out livestock for moral consideration you commit
> the exact same fallacy that vegans do, you just do it in reverse.
>
>
>> "Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"
>
>Out-of-context quote. Full text:
>
> Life does not justify death, more to the point, life does not
> justify killing. If it did, parents who kill their children could
> introduce it in court as a factor in their favour. The fact that
> we raise livestock with the *intention* of killing them does not
> change it, we still cannot ethically use *life itself* as a
> justification for killing.
>
>
>>
>> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>
>Out of context mangling of an answer to Fuckwit's comment.
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goober:
> If you didn't want people to think veganism does save farm
> animals etc,
>
>
> Dutch:
> If you wish to use that vernacular, and you do, then veganism
> *does* savefarm animals [from the vegan viewpoint from a life of
> misery]. If you are going to argue that continuing meat
> consumption allows future animals to be born [from your viewpoint
> to experience a potentially decent life] then vegans can argue
> that abstaining from meat saves future animals from life
>
>
>>
>>> You are REALLY stupid.
>>
>> "you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>> for years." - "Dutch"
>
>Out-of-context mangled pseudo-quote. Full text:
>
> If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're
> an ARA and you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
> for years.
>
>
> From now on, Fuckwit, all of your tedious pseudo-quotes are just
>dismissed. There will be no more corrections. Your allegations of
>"quotes" are just summarily dismissed, because you're a known unethical
>editor and liar.
In February 2005 I made a new post titled, "Jonathan's quotes - posted
for Harrison's future reference"
"animals have a "right" to be born. It's true"
Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy
"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
