>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you keep an animal from being born which
>>>>>>> would have been born without your interference,
>>>>>>> you have denied life to it, whether it actually
>>>>>>> exists or not.
>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
>>>>>>> even more wrong to discourage them from ever
>>>>>>> getting to experience life at all IMO.
>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am talking about non-existing entities as if
>>>>>>> they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
>>>>>>> the idea that they should never be alive.
>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lately (winter 2008), Fuckwit has been lying about his
>>>>>>> focus. He has taken to claiming that he is concerned
>>>>>>> with existing farm animals, and their enjoyment of
>>>>>>> [ugh; wretched Fuckwit phrasing alert] "lives of
>>>>>>> positive value". This is another Fuckwit lie. As the
>>>>>>> above quotes largely show, and as the next two amplify
>>>>>>> and reinforce, Fuckwit has *always* been maniacally
>>>>>>> obsessed with the wrong done to non-existent "future
>>>>>>> farm animals":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
>>>>>>> even more wrong to discourage them from ever
>>>>>>> getting to experience life at all IMO.
>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am talking about non-existing entities as if
>>>>>>> they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
>>>>>>> the idea that they should never be alive.
>>>>>>> Fuckwit - 10 Nov 1999
http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
