On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:46:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news
>> 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.
>
>Of course it is, anyone can see it plainly. You accept the ARA position that
>it's a moral wrong to kill animals for food, but you contend that moral
>wrong is more than compensated for by the moral good we do by enabling those
>animals to experience life. It's called the Logic of the Larder and you
>believe it to the letter.
>
>> The Gonads lie about my beliefs,
>
>He tells the truth about your beliefs and supports it with quotes.
>
>> 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,
>
>You have always argued that the fact that they expeience life is a moral
>good that we should take into consideration.
>
>> but it is that we should not quit
>> raising them to keep them from being killed.
>
>You have never put it that way before, you're just wriggling now.

I've told you that every time we've discussed it, and then
pointed out that if you quit lying you wouldn't have anything
to bother me about.

>> I've seen the
>> impression promoted that veg*nism means more life for farm
>> animals,
>
>"Life for farm animals" has no moral importance whatsoever. Veganism would
>eliminate farm animals, and there is nothing inherently immoral about that
>prospect.
>
>> but it means less, not more.
>
>So what?

So you want the false impressions that veg*nism helps farm animals, and
that "AR" would mean better lives for them, to be believed by as many
people as possible.

>You just lied right above, "My argument in not that we should try
>to raise more animals" yet you just offered that raising fewer farm animals
>would be a bad thing, it wouldn't, not morally.

What you hate about me, is that I point out the lies you "ARAs" want
people to believe. Do you really think they get the majority of their money
from people who want to see domestic animals eliminated? I don't, so I
point out that that's what they really want. You don't either, and you don't
want their contributors to stop paying for the project. The reason you
Gonads keep lying about what I believe is to encourage acceptance of
your elimination objetctive.