****wit, 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 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) a peculiar kind
of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from ****wit's
usenet rantings over a three and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
****wit's own.



****wit 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.
****wit - 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.
****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


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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 04/20/2002


****wit denies 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
****wit 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


****wit *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.
****wit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *****wit* 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 [****wit'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.
****wit - 09/23/1999


****wit 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, ****wit 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 ****wit 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 ****wit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about ****wit's beliefs. ****wit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by ****wit's own ranting.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
. net...
****wit, 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 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) a peculiar kind
of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from ****wit's
usenet rantings over a three and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
****wit's own.



****wit 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.
****wit - 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.
****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


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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 04/20/2002


****wit denies 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
****wit 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 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.
****wit - 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.
****wit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


****wit *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.
****wit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *****wit* 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 [****wit'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.
****wit - 09/23/1999


****wit 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, ****wit 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 ****wit 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 ****wit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about ****wit's beliefs. ****wit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by ****wit's own ranting.



That was good ~~jonnie~~ Now about this tinyurl?

Have you forgotten?

Ray wrote:

[****wittery]

Here you go, Dump:

A "****wit" is a person who has consistently failed
to obtain any degree of 'clue'.

This will often be in a technical sense, such as
'top posting' to usenet, quoting the entire text of
a usenet post or email in your reply and adding a
few words in response, or continually being a
complete dickhead.

http://www.****wit.info/whatis.htm

You stupid ****wit. You almost always "quot[e] the
entire text of a usenet post...in your reply and
add...a few words in response". You are also a
copmlete dickhead.

You clueless, stupid dickheaded ****wit.

I never top post ~~jonnie~~, it is the hallmark of a '****wit'.

You are the second person this week to accuse me of posting 'one liners' The
only alternative is to post bags of crap, usually repeated and bore the arse
off everyone. At least with my style (or lack of) of posting it is easy to
dispose of my stupid "off topic" remarks - or is that one 'of' too many?
Best make it two and tell you to **** off.

*But*, not before I remind of that "tinyurl". I would like an answer without
another 'off'.

Sorry nobody will engage you in serious riveting debate, not my fault.

But like your Governor - "he'll be back".

Now send something on topic.

Shitbag Slater
www.****wit.info


Relax ~~jonnie~~ another days work over.

Attached Thumbnails