On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Dutch wrote:
>> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and
>> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature
>> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity.
>> >>>
>> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch.
>> >>
>> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY!
>> >
>> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese.
>>
>> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your
>> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day.
>> See you tomorrow, Jon.
>
>Scurry away

"Get this, ****WIT:

If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral
meaning to it.

If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have
not done a good deed.

Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators'
"treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid
when you keep doing it after having had explained to
you why it's misguided.

One more to jam down your throat with my boot,
****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel.
They can't be."
Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11

It's clear that you believe natural predation is cruel
and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. With
that in mind and your earlier quotes below, you've
conceded to both of Harrison's claims;

1) That animals benefit from getting the chance
to experience life;
[start ipse dixit]
> The quotes and admissions below prove you
> believe an animal benefits from getting to
> experience life and being able to reproduce after
> their predators have been removed
[Dutch]
Of course they do.
[end]

2) That "this is a "moral consideration" issue.""
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

Both these arguments are Harrison's, and like
him, when asked to explain how they benefit
and why it's a moral consideration issue, you
reply that it is "self-evident" or "obvious".

> [ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]

As usual your past quotes have come back to bite you.
You believe our moral consideration to remove natural
predators is a good thing and that we should continue to
farm animals because "nature is arguably more cruel
than captivity." You follow the logic of the larder, Dutch.