Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals

#61 (**permalink**) February 8th 05, 10:55 PM

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
=B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that

..=2E.in the sense that YOU believe they are SOMETHING, SOMETHING with an
experiential welfa

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.
****wit - 12/09/1999

#62 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 01:45 AM

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:18:35 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:37:43 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:28 GMT, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:11:06 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:

From: Rudy Canoza
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does
Message-ID: t
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
form of reality instead.

"Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."

Why did you lie, Harrison?

Since I don't believe that,

We'll see about 'that'. Read on.

the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do.

The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the
reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non-
existent animals have some kind of reality.

Well, Harrison? Why did you lie to your readers in
this way? Producing half a quote to misrepresent
your opponent's position is lying.

Look at the half-quotes I produced yesterday; they
all misrepresent his position, and yet YOU took them
as true statements without even checking for them,

LOL! It's obvious what you were doing.

Not to you, it wasn't. Aren't you going to apologise,
if not to Jon, then to your readers for what you did?
How will they ever trust you again?

even while most of them began in lower-case letters.

"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

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

And here's your effort;

"Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality"
Jonathan Ball 30 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6466v

Producing only part of a quote to misrepresent your
opponent's position is a lie,

That's what you Gonads have been doing to me
for years.

Excusing your own wrongful behaviour by referring to
the alleged wrongful behaviour of others doesn't get
you off the hook. Producing only part of a quote to
intentionally misrepresent your opponent's position is
lying.

What I did was to remove a lie

What you did was to intentionally misquote Jon. If his
quote contained a lie, then you should have dealt with
it in the proper way rather than edit it to misrepresent
his position.

The Gonad wanted to
present the idea that they have some kind of reality,

Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give
your readers that impression. You lied to them.

No.

You DID lie, Harrison, by editing his quote. He does
NOT "present the idea that they have some kind of
reality."

Obviously he did, since he did it.

Only your edited quote did it, Harrison. You're lying again,
even after being caught red-handed.

and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence.

It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because

You don't know.

I DO know,

That's a lie.

Your archived quotes show that no one has lied about you,
while on the other hand, your edited quote at the top of this
post certainly shows that you've lied about those who produce
your archived quotes.

Harrison, because your whole quotes
clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals
have some kind of reality,

No they don't.

Yes, they do. They show that you believe unconceived
beings have substance of living matter, and further
down this page you agree once again that this is so
by stating, "I believe it's a possibility", and that, "There
are billions of people who believe it to be true." You're
a hopeless liar, Harrison.

exactly as Jon originally wrote before you edited his quote.

Review the following discussion between ourselves
on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals
have substance of living matter, but before doing that,
read this (below).

[Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate
that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based
on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul
Grice called them) which govern cooperative
communication. One of these rules is that you should state
only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of
"Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you
can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying,
but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption
that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the
rules.]
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

Now let's look at those quotes of yours you snipped away
again.

[start - me to you] *my edit
What proof are you going to offer that will
prove it (life)* is a benefit?

The only reason you can benefit is because
you have life.

Then that ruins your argument, because you
have given the beneficiary of life a relative
position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged
any further by giving it life. A benefit is
something gained from a relative position,
so if life is a benefit, what was that relative
position of the beneficiary before life if not
dead or unborn?

Matter composing something else...sometimes
something living or sometimes not.

You're joking! You've now given a non-existing
beneficiary substance of matter as well as a
relative position of being alive before birth.

No position of being alive before birth, though
I consider it a possibility.

It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not
have substance of matter, and they cannot
be alive before coming into being.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
I believe it's a possibility.

Here we are, just as I told you. Once again you've
conceded, contrary to your earlier lie further up this
page, that unconceived animals have living substance
of matter.

The Gonad believes it's a possibility.

According to your edited quote he does, but we all
know that that was a lie on your part now, so give
it up.

There are billions of people who believe it to be true.

Yet further up this page you insist I'm lying when
trying to tell you "your whole quotes clearly reveal that
you DO believe non-existent animals have some kind
of reality" I obviously wasn't lying, seeing as you also
reckon, "There are billions of people who believe it to
be true." as well as yourself.

Your quotes and this new revelation where
unborn animals have substance of matter
and possibly a life before coming into being
are testament to your beliefs.

No.

Yes, they are.

That is a retarded interpretation. All things
are composed of matter.

The unconceived are nothing and do not have any
substance of matter, despite your unsupported
assertion that "There are billions of people who
believe it to be true."

No one is
insisting anything you haven't already insisted
yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
and for those who produce your quotes here
in refutation to your claim that they've lied
about your beliefs, then it is only from some
deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
your part.

LOL!

You're not laughing, Harrison. You've been caught
out.

Jon and I do not 'stick together'.

Bullshit.

What you fail to realise is that when honest readers
like myself spot a lie, they're obligated to reveal it.

That's a ****ing lie.

No, it is not. In fact my duty to reveal the lies I find
and damn the consequences has put me in some very
awkward positions with my own side over the years
here, and elsewhere.

And another thing you fail to realise it that while
obligating me in this way you put me in a position
I'd rather not be in.

Then accept the God damn truth and expose
the Gonad's lies instead of lying along with him.

He hasn't lied about you. All your quotes have been
produced verbatim from Google archives and come
with a link. You, on the other hand, have lied about
Jon and myself. That much is clear.

#63 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 02:17 AM

#64 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 06:16 PM

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:50:37 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get
animals to experience life by then eating them,

That's not our goal.

You propose that it ought to be a consideration,

It should be of course.

Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on the
moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for
food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience
life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use
animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is
unecessary and extraneous.

which is the same thing.

That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs,
which according to your retardation would mean that "our
goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause
the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock
plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields
harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration.

We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to experience
life" either. The whole notion is nonsense.

[..]

I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives.
Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal
lives than you have?

A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility.

The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs"
are not successful in preventing them.

So what?

So you're wrong.

No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event.

Why should we always choose wildlife in crop fields, over
wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? Do you think if we
did, there would always be fewer animals who experience
harm or loss?

#65 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 06:16 PM

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:06:08 +0000, Derek lied:

I don't contribute to the deaths of any animals.

That's a lie.

#66 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 06:16 PM

· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
David Harrison does
Message-ID: t
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
Message-ID: . net
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT

The rational person realizes:

1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
a 'pre-born' state.

2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ·

#67 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 06:20 PM

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:29 +0000, Derek wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:46:58 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:

The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them

If we're going to give potential future beings any
consideration at all, why should we assume that
'their' current position can be bettered by bringing
'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming
into being might be preferable to 'them', especially
if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for
food or medical research.

I think you ought to answer this question,

"why should we assume that
'their' current position can be bettered by bringing
'them' into being?"
One reason is that since 'they' probably do not
exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo.

For whom or what would life be a good thing?

Your turn:

why should we assume that
'their' current position is better than not bringing
'them' into being?

That's what I'm asking you, Harrison, and you must
find an answer or you'll have no position to argue from.

Oh, okay. We have absolutely no reason to believe
that 'they' have any current position, and there is no
reason not to bring 'them' into being. We can agree on
that from here on, and thanks for allowing me to answer
for you.

because
without an adequate explanation you don't have a
position to argue from.

The same goes even more for you

No, it doesn't,

It does, but since you let me answer for both of us
we now both agree that your position is retarded.

so stop trying to divert the issue from
yourself onto me,

You wanted to be the retard.

and answer the question.

I answered for myself, and now I've answered for you too.

Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05

Until we know something of 'their' current state
we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing
'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and
slaughtered after a few months, or used as human
models for medical research.

We might not be.

Then make your case, Harrison.
1) prove non-existent beings exist

They don't.

Yet in another thread to this this afternoon you've
insisted they do exist when referring to your non-
existent chicks as "them".

"What I would have originally set out to do would
have been to give them 6 months instead of nothing."

If they had gotten the 6 months there would have
been them in the form of baby chicks. Since they didn't,
there was still them in the form of zygotes.

In the same thread you also insist that anyone opposed
to considering "them" are really disgusting.

[start- you]
So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone
else consider them are really disgusting imo,
[me]
By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts

I'm referring to the animals we raise for food.

or non-existent nothings?
[end]

We both give 'them' consideration. I'd like to see 'them'
have decent lives. You would like to see 'them' never
have any life.

#68 (**permalink**) February 9th 05, 10:43 PM

****wit David Harrison, cracker, wrote:
=B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that

..=2E.in the sense that YOU, ****wit, believe they are SOMETHING,
SOMETHING with an experiential reality:

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.
****wit - 12/09/1999

You believe non-existent farm animals can experience loss, deprivation
and unfairness, and that they can have "enemies":

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.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 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.
****wit - 10/19/1999

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
****wit - 09/13/1999

Nice lack of number agreement in that last one, you ****ing corncob.

#69 (**permalink**) February 10th 05, 04:58 AM

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:50:37 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get
animals to experience life by then eating them,

That's not our goal.

You propose that it ought to be a consideration,

It should be of course.

Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on
the
moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for
food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience
life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use
animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is
unecessary and extraneous.

which is the same thing.

That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs,
which according to your retardation would mean that "our
goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause
the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock
plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields
harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration.

We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to
experience
life" either. The whole notion is nonsense.

[..]

I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives.
Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal
lives than you have?

A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility.

The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs"
are not successful in preventing them.

So what?

So you're wrong.

Fewer animals will be born is not the same as saying animals are prevented
from living. The former is a valid statement (although not necessarily true)
and the latter is a logical absurdity, you can't do anything to a
non-existent animal.

No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event.

Why should we always choose wildlife in crop fields, over
wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?

I don't advocate those particular ideas either way. It's stupid thinking.

Do you think if we
did, there would always be fewer animals who experience
harm or loss?

Just get off this kick altogether.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE!	Animalsrus1	Dog rescue	0	August 18th 03 03:26 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE!	Animalsrus1	Dog breeds	0	August 18th 03 03:23 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE!	Animalsrus1	Dog behavior	0	August 18th 03 03:22 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE!	Animalsrus1	Dog rescue	0	August 4th 03 04:52 PM
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE!	Animalsrus1	Dog health	0	July 30th 03 05:18 PM