FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>
>>"Auntie Nettles" > wrote
>>> wrote
>>
>>> > For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on
>>> > referred to more correctly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
>>> > "ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents.
>>>
>>> Is their friend "rick etter" (or shall I call him, "prick eater" in
>>> accordance with ng protocol) an ARA as well?
>>
>>Rick, Jonathan and I are three of the most consistent and outspoken
>>*anti*-ARAs posting to aaev and tpa. dh_ld is just a common garden
>variety
>>crybaby, he calls us ARAs because he is frustrated that we don't buy
>into
>>his silly little game of attacking ARAs for the moral crime of not
>>contributing to livestock "getting to experience life".
>
>That's a very strange view to hold.

It's not a view that I hold. The Gonads lie about my beliefs,
and having the lies believed is very important to them, as you may
see. Here's something I just got done writing to another thread
regarding the same thing:

The Gonad lies about other people's beliefs, and usually lets
it go at that without even attacking the lies he has created.
My argument in not that we should try to raise more animals
so they can experience life, but it is that we should not quit
raising them to keep them from being killed. I've seen the
impression promoted that veg*nism means more life for farm
animals, but it means less, not more. I believe it's *very*
important for people to always keep that fact in mind, so they
don't develop the false impression that veg*nism in some way
helps animals.

>>> I noticed that he
>>> immediately jumped on me and called me a "killer" right after I
>wrote
>>> a post suggesting that hunting was a good way to obtain "natural"
>>> meat. That's what "ARA's" do, isn't it?
>>
>>Rick eats meat and opposes AR. It must have been a misunderstanding.
>The
>>significance of the "killer" epithet is that it applies to everyone,
>>including self-righteous vegans. You're a killer, I'm a killer, get
>it?
>
>...or at the very least, an "aider and abetter." :-)
>
>>> > They did it
>>> > attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents, in order
>>> > to have more influence on their thinking about issues which could
>>> > be significant to "AR". The Gonad's character was also designed
>to
>>> > make "AR" opponents appear as childish, inconsiderate of humans
>>> > and animals, dishonest, meddling, and the lowest form of news
>group
>>> > participant in general.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>
>>No. Don't make the mistake of believing anything dl_hd aka ****wit
>Harrison
>>has to say.
>>
>>> I do notice he loves stealing others' email addies so he can
>>> cause trouble on other groups without thinking he can be "caught"
>>> (e.g. alt.philosopy, misc.rural, rec.boats, and so forth). Perhaps
>>> this "rick etter" fellow has me confused with this "ARA" Gonad's
>>> forgeries, and whatever "ARA" sentiments he has put forth under the
>>> forged address.
>>
>>None. He's a shit disturber, yes, but not an ARA, and he doesn't care
>about
>>"getting caught".
>>
>>> (I am not now, nor have I ever been an "activist" or "vegan",
>although
>>> I am interested in healthy nutrition. And yes, I am the original
>>> owner of this address, as evidenced by my posting from Google. You
>>> cannot forge an address when posting from Google.)
>>
>>He stopped posting as you long ago, right?
>
>Nope. He still uses my addy in both his "Wilson Woods" and "Dieter"
>nyms.

He is the lowest form of news group scum imo.

>I view that as an invitation, of sorts.
>
>>> I would like to further point out that, among his activities on
>these
>>> other groups, are some rather intense left-wing sentiments
>regarding
>>> immigration law and the like. Just do a Google search on his sock
>nym
>>> "Wilson Woods" on misc.rural.
>>
>>I doubt if they are left wing sentiments coming from him, better take
>>another look.
>
>At the very least, I was surprised that he would take the view he did.
> Perhaps he is Libertarian?
>
>>> > One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that
>people
>>> > consider any alternative to veg*nism
>>
>>Like all sane people we support omnivorism without guilt as an
>alternative
>>to veganism. dl_hd supports a bizarre form of double-reverse AR which
>>proposes that we commit a moral *good* to raise livestock and let
>them
>>exerience life which cancels out the moral wrong we commit by killing
>them.
>>It's quite a revolting and contorted form of self-gratification,
>worse than
>>AR in my opinion.
>
>Yes, I agree it's a pretty strange viewpoint.

Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not. I know this
from personal experience. That being the case, I have no reason to
view them differently than other creatures like wildlife. That being the
case as well, the "AR" objective to eliminate farm animals so they
aren't killed, is no more ethically superior than if they wanted to eliminate
rabbits so they aren't killed, etc..........

>It sounds about as
>"morally right" as giving a poor person some money for awhile and then
>taking everything away after a year or so.

Now your sounding like Dutch. The situations are in no way similar,
and therefore not a respectable comparison. Can you figure out why
they aren't similar? I try that with Dutch quite a lot, and he can never
figure it out. I'm hoping that you can, but if not I'll explain it later if you
want.

>Of course, if it's just one person holding that viewpoint, that isn't
>something I would get a coronary over.

But they are extremely afraid that other people might accept that
viewpoint. They don't want people to consider the possibility that
anything could be ethically equivalent or (even worse to them)
superior to veg*nism. They want to create the impression that the
elimination of farm animals would be the most ethical course humans
could take. What do you think it would do to their chances of success
if it became popular to deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm
animals instead?

>Actually, I find I'm in agreement with most of yours and Ball's
>opinions, it's just that I don't like his delivery that much.

You might want to be careful there. Even if you get on the Gonad's
good side, and he becomes your buddy to some degree, he'll still be the
same low life scum that he is. The main reason I quit posting using my
email address is because of an email from him. He said something like:
the only reason I kicked your ass in the news groups.... That's about
all I read. I've had scum like that pretend to want to work things out
in the past, but all they really want is to trick you into doing what they
want you to do.

>IMHO
>he's wasting all his energy and talents on the puniest of targets,
>when we know there are bigger and more imposing fish to fry in Usenet
>Land. It's kind of comical when one considers the ever-more relevent
>issues on some of the more lively and active newsgroups.
>
>>--especially any alternative which
>>> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for
>farm
>>> > animals.
>>
>>That's a lie and a weak equivoacation, we all support animal welfare.
>
>Animal welfare is generally a good thing. Not only is it better for
>the animals, but the overall quality of the meat is better.
>
>I am fortunate enough to live near a farmers market that sells from
>smaller vendors. I buy my poultry from a vendor who advertises as
>"free range organic". The difference in quality is such that I won't
>buy from the chain supermarket "name brand" producers, which seem
>flavorless and rubbery compared to the smaller vendor's product.

Well, maybe consider that one aspect of whether or not humans
should raise animals for food is our influence on the *animals* and
not just on you/us. If you can bring yourself to take it that far, you
could check around with some of the farmers and see if you learn
that some of the animals actually do benefit from farming. Maybe
you wouldn't, and if not you have lost nothing. But if you learn that
some do, it could give you a *much* more realistic view of human
influence on animals.

>>> > The reason for that was desperation to prevent people from
>>> > considering that humans could take some approach that is
>ethically
>>> > equivalent or superior to the "AR" hopes of eliminating domestic
>>> > animals.
>>
>>As meat consumers we do not support or consider the elimination of
>farm
>>animals a worthy goal. We do not however consider it a moral wrong
>per se.
>>There would be NO *moral* loss if there were NO more livestock in the
>world.
>
>Well, I sort of disagree there. Now, if livestock had never existed,
>there would be no moral loss. But it's existed for thousands of years
>after all. If all livestock went extinct tomorrow, that would be like
>losing a part of our human heritage. ...True, livestock animals don't
>fulfill vital roles in the ecosystem as wild animals do. But perhaps
>a few of them should be preserved just in the interest of... well,
>human interest, as is the case of farms that specialize in preserving
>rare breeds; so that future generations can enjoy them, etc. etc.
>...An analogy would be like preserving old Model T Fords.
>
>Of course, what value we place on our own self indulgences can be
>subjective from one person to the next; YMMV. Some people might not
>see any moral loss if we eliminated every last Model T Ford; while
>others would decry that it's a destruction of history.
>
>>> Perhaps what also disturbs them about the idea of anyone liking soy
>>> milk is the idea that it even *resembles* an animal product.
>>
>>Since we aren't ARAs that is a non sequitor, but most vegetarians
>enjoy
>>"meat-like" products and I see it as a non-issue.
>
>The same here -- ( I was just ribbing "rick etter", actually. :-)
>But non-issue, yes. People like Chicken McNuggets for the taste and
>texture (even though personally, I think the "reconstituted" product
>resembles dog food, LOL). When people eat Chicken McNuggets, most
>probably don't think much about living chickens when they're eating
>them.

Some do and some don't. I do. I believe most broiler chickens have
decent lives, and am glad enough to contribute to them.

>But perhaps vegetarians do.
[...]

Vegetarians don't contribute to life for farm animals...at least they
try not to. All they deliberately contribute to is the death of wildlife.