FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

****wit David Harrison choked:

> On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Auntie Nettles" > wrote
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>>>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.

It is PRECISELY the view you hold, ****wit. Stop lying.

> They lie about my beliefs

No one has lied about your beliefs, ****wit. We have
correctly inferred your beliefs based on what you've
written. You believe non-existent animals can suffer a
"loss":

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

The above was not a "mistake": it ACCURATELY expresses
your thinking, and you carefully put the wording
together over the course of a year.

You consider the unborn animals to be a morally
considerable "something":

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 consider that "aras" are "depriving" non-existent
entities of something, and that they are somehow being
"unfair" to non-existent entities:

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

You believe that "aras" are some kind of "enemy" of
non-existent animals, that what they are doing is "bad":

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

You are ****ED, ****wit: just ****ED by your own words.

I have not lied about your beliefs. You have revealed
your ****witted beliefs, and now you're angry that
you're being ridiculed for them.

>>>>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.

You don't believe that, ****wit. You're just angry
because I have exposed you as an idiot. You are angry
because I have won.

>>>>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.

They are not "left wing". They are principled
libertarian opposition to bigotry. Those assholes in
misc.rural are not arguing immigration law, they are
spewing bigotry. They don't CARE about the immigration
status of Latino immigrants; they just hate Mexicans.

>>>>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

They aren't.

>>>better take another look.
>>
>>At the very least, I was surprised that he would take the view he did.
>>Perhaps he is Libertarian?

Exactly right, except I describe myself as a small-"el"
libertarian. I often vote Libertarian, but I'm not
active in the party, and in fact I consider the party
to be preoccupied with a silly sort of ideological
purity rather than advancing meaningful libertarianism.

>>>>> 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.

Right.

>>>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.

****witspeak: "benefit from farming" = "benefit from
coming into existence".

NO ANIMALS "benefit" from coming into existence,
****wit. None.

>>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

They are similar.

Here's one that is IDENTICAL, that you whiff off from:
using your "getting to experience life" bullshit, a
parent who murders his own child could say that "at
least" he "gave the gift of life" to his child, and
offer that as mitigation, possibly even exoneration.
The idea is absurd and patently offensive, but it would
"work" under your ****witted belief.

>>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.

No, we aren't. We just enjoy making you look STUPID
for clinging to it. ALL other anti-"ar" participants
in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. have REJECTED your ****wittery
on precisely the grounds I have identified for it being
objectionable. Only this ****ing moronic shitwipe
"JethroFW" whom you lured into it from alt.philosophy
buys into it, and he has demonstrated that he is an
ignorant doofus. In fact, he has SELF-IDENTIFIED as an
ignorant doofus, admitting he has never read a scrap of
philosophy in his life.

>>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.

Lots of people don't like it. I believe most of them
live rewarding lives all the same.

> 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.

You don't think I'm a low-life scum, ****wit. You're
just ****y, in a girlish sort of way, because I tipped
over your tea table.

>
>>IMHO he's wasting all his energy and talents on the puniest of targets,

You're probably right, but ****wit is rather like a
punching bag. It's a nice light workout for me.

>>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.

****witspeak: "benefit from farming" = "benefit from
coming into existence".

NO ANIMALS "benefit" from existence per se, ****wit. None.

>>>>>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.

He means there would be no moral loss to any animals
themselves.

>>...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.

IF they exist, fine. "contributing to decent lives"
does not mean one thinks the animals "ought" to exist.

>
>
>>But perhaps vegetarians do.
>
> [...]
>
> Vegetarians don't contribute to life for farm animals

There is no reason for them to do so.