Dreck lied about my logic.

The crucial context that the liar omitted is his
*earlier* false statement of logic that he attributed
to me, and my correction of it:

Dreck the liar:
> That being so, according to your logic, those
> black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
> deserving of them.

Jon:
False. You have the wrong every time.

According to my logic, if you knowingly continue to
buy
chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then
YOU
do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't believe
they do.

And so it is with animals. YOU don't believe they
have
rights, because you knowingly and cheerfully violate
"them".


Dreck MISSTATED my logic as suggesting that consuming
products obtained in a way that violates rights in
which you profess to believe means that the supposed
rights holders don't really hold those rights. He
lied, of course, as Dreck always lies. My logic does
not hold that consuming the products means the victims
don't have rights; it means that the consumer does not
BELIEVE they have rights that deserve protection.
That's very different, of course, which is why the
lifelong liar and moral shirker Dreck Nash lied about it.

Dreck and ~~rat****~~ don't *really* believe animals
have rights, because they consistently and KNOWINGLY
participate in a process that violates the "rights"
they claim to believe animals have. They are not
compelled to engage in this violation; they do it
because they choose to do it.

Dreck and ~~rat****~~ both are deliberate liars and
hypocrites. Dreck does it because he is fundamentally
stupid, unserious and thinks it's cute. ~~rat****~~
does it because she is intellectually overmatched, and
desperate.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:17:27 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Dreck lied about my logic.

Snip right there, your logic, like your mind, is fatally flawed. you
fat, lard arse dwarf.

Go away and come back when you have learnt the art of debate, &
constructive sentencing.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
> Dreck lied about my logic.
>
Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

Because you earlier wrote;

"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
it proves YOU don't believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

[start]
From: Derek )
Subject: Child slavery and chocolate.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Date: 2003-07-29 10:47:08 PST

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message arthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> >
> >>>and you support
> >>>it. According to your rule you don't believe those
> >>>black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
> >>
> >>You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
> >>I wouldn't support it if there were.
> >
> > There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
> > prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
> > exist. You're a liar living in denial.
>
> Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
> haven't posted this bit of crapola before.
>
Irrelevant. It proves slave labour exists, and that
it is prevalent in the chocolate industry you support.

> > [WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
> > announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
> > for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
> > with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
> > unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
> > exploitation.
>
> That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.
>
Yes, it does, and the chocolate industry has
announced that it accepts responsibility for
it too.

> > The action plan comes just months after industry
> > insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
> > were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
> > African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
> > cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
> > Ridder investigation published in June found that
> > some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> > into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
> > http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html
>
> This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
> due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
> slavery.
>
"A Knight Ridder investigation published in June found
that some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast."
> >
> >>But there isn't.
> >
> > There is, and you support it.
>
> There isn't, and you couldn't possibly hope to
> substantiate it.
>
I already have.
> >
> > [The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
> > the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
> > cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
> > organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
> > 10 and 17.
> >
> > The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
> > Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
> > cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]
>
> No citatation of source. How conVEEEEEEEEnient.
>
** I did give the citation.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

> Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights
> report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:
>
> In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
> signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
> need to be more active in repatriating Malian
> children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
> some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
> and coffee plantations.

COFFEE? I'm talking about chocolate, you lying
fool.

> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327
> >
** See, liar?

> > [On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
> > Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
> > Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
> > Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
> > and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
> > and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
> > West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
> > cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
> > State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
> > work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
> > http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html
>
> No, that's not what the State Department reported at
> all.

It certainly did.

> You, and these shrill activists, lied.
>
No. You're the one doing all the lying and denying
your support for child slave labour.

> The claim of slavery is debunked.
>
It's a proven fact.

> > and there's no use you denying that you
> > support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.
>
> I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
> supporting slavery.

You do buy chocolate, and you do support
the slavery that goes with it.

> > That being so, according to your logic, those
> > black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
> > deserving of them.
>
> False. You have the wrong every time.
>
> According to my logic, if you knowingly continue to buy
> chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
> do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
> prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't believe
> they do.
>
Whether you or I eat the stuff is irrelevant. What
is relevant is your claim that those kids aren't
seen as rights bearers by people who do buy
chocolate from them. It's an absurd claim which
you can't substantiate.
[end]

When will you ever stop lying, Jonathan?

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>Dreck lied about my logic.
>>
>
> Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
> hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
> thread when you wrote;
> "People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
> standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
> are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad people.

>
> Because you earlier wrote;
>
> "According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
> to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
> lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
> the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
> it proves YOU don't believe they do."
> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have. But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights. That was not my logic, shitbag.
You lied.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
> >
> >>Dreck lied about my logic.
> >
> > Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
> > hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
> > thread when you wrote;
> > "People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
> > standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
> > are hypocrites, and bad people."
>
> That's a true statement: people who advocate that
> everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
> themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
> people.
>
That's you.
> >
> > Because you earlier wrote;
> >
> > "According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
> > to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
> > lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
> > the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
> > it proves YOU don't believe they do."
> > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
>
> Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
> the rights you claim the children have.

..... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

> But earlier,
> you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
> knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
> don't have rights.

Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

> That was not my logic, shitbag.
> You lied.
>
Re-read it. You're saying the same thing twice.

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dreck lied about my logic.
>>>
>>>Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
>>>hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
>>>thread when you wrote;
>>>"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
>>>standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
>>>are hypocrites, and bad people."
>>
>>That's a true statement: people who advocate that
>>everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
>>themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
>>people.
>>
>
> That's you.
>
>>>Because you earlier wrote;
>>>
>>>"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
>>>to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
>>>lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
>>>the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
>>>it proves YOU don't believe they do."
>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
>>
>>Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
>>the rights you claim the children have.
>
>
> .... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

Which you do.

>
>
>>But earlier,
>>you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
>>knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
>>don't have rights.
>
>
> Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
that something is so, and something being so, are not
equivalent.

You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
debate.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dreck lied about my logic.
> >>>
> >>>Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
> >>>hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
> >>>thread when you wrote;
> >>>"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
> >>>standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
> >>>are hypocrites, and bad people."
> >>
> >>That's a true statement: people who advocate that
> >>everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
> >>themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
> >>people.
> >>
> >
> > That's you.
> >
> >>>Because you earlier wrote;
> >>>
> >>>"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
> >>>to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
> >>>lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
> >>>the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
> >>>it proves YOU don't believe they do."
> >>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
> >>
> >>Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
> >>the rights you claim the children have.
> >
> >
> > .... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.
>
> Which you do.
>
> >
> >
> >>But earlier,
> >>you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
> >>knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
> >>don't have rights.
> >
> >
> > Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.
>
> No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
> that something is so, and something being so, are not
> equivalent.
>
> You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
> debate.
>
>
Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does buying
chocalte have to do with children's rights?
And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

damon wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>
> k.net...
>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>
> k.net...
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dreck lied about my logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
>>>>>hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
>>>>>thread when you wrote;
>>>>>"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
>>>>>standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
>>>>>are hypocrites, and bad people."
>>>>
>>>>That's a true statement: people who advocate that
>>>>everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
>>>>themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Because you earlier wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>>"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
>>>>>to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
>>>>>lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
>>>>>the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
>>>>>it proves YOU don't believe they do."
>>>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
>>>>
>>>>Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
>>>>the rights you claim the children have.
>>>
>>>
>>>.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.
>>
>>Which you do.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>But earlier,
>>>>you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
>>>>knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
>>>>don't have rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.
>>
>>No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
>>that something is so, and something being so, are not
>>equivalent.
>>
>>You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
>>debate.
>>
>
> Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does buying
> chocalte have to do with children's rights?
> And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't. Kids are "leased" into
indentured servitude by their parents. It's for a
fixed term, and the children are paid a wage, even if
it's their parents who collect it. It's the kind of
thing that goes in poor countries.

It's brought up, here, by smarmy "animal rights
activists" who cannot address their complicity in the
violation of the "rights" they say animals ought to
have, except by trying to engage in a _tu quoque_ argument.

"damon" > wrote

> Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does
buying
> chocalte have to do with children's rights?
> And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

Something about child slavery in cocoa fields...

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> damon wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >
> > k.net...
> >
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >
> > k.net...
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Dreck lied about my logic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
> >>>>>hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
> >>>>>thread when you wrote;
> >>>>>"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
> >>>>>standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
> >>>>>are hypocrites, and bad people."
> >>>>
> >>>>That's a true statement: people who advocate that
> >>>>everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
> >>>>themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
> >>>>people.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>That's you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Because you earlier wrote;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
> >>>>>to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
> >>>>>lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
> >>>>>the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
> >>>>>it proves YOU don't believe they do."
> >>>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
> >>>>
> >>>>Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
> >>>>the rights you claim the children have.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.
> >>
> >>Which you do.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>But earlier,
> >>>>you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
> >>>>knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
> >>>>don't have rights.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
> >>that something is so, and something being so, are not
> >>equivalent.
> >>
> >>You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
> >>debate.
> >>
> >
> > Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does
buying
> > chocalte have to do with children's rights?
> > And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.
>
> Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> (and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> slave labor. It isn't. Kids are "leased" into
> indentured servitude by their parents. It's for a
> fixed term, and the children are paid a wage, even if
> it's their parents who collect it. It's the kind of
> thing that goes in poor countries.
>
> It's brought up, here, by smarmy "animal rights
> activists" who cannot address their complicity in the
> violation of the "rights" they say animals ought to
> have, except by trying to engage in a _tu quoque_ argument.
>

Thanks for the info. Man these animal rights dweebs are ****in insane.

damon wrote:

<snip>
> Thanks for the info. Man these animal rights dweebs are ****in insane.

Never take anything Jon Ball says at face value. This exchange has
a long history in TPA/AAEV, and, if you are really intersted in why
it is here, you could look up the complete exchange in Google.

Rat

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> (and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> slave labor. It isn't.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists, so you're
a liar living in denial while benefitting from child labour.

WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html


Knight Ridder News Service
June 28, 2001
By Sumana Chatterjee


Jun. 28--WASHINGTON--After months of saying there
was little or no evidence of child slavery on cocoa farms
in Ivory Coast, chocolate manufacturers and their industry
groups are ratcheting up global efforts to combat the
problem. The U.S. government is investigating whether to
tell its agencies to stop buying cocoa products because
of the Ivory Coast slavery, a Labor Department spokesman
said Wednesday. A joint industry-government survey of
cocoa farms begins next month, and the international cocoa
industry has called a special meeting for July to discuss
ways to end slavery on the farms that supply cocoa beans.
http://tinyurl.com/tbs9

The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

There is no denying these facts on child slave labour,
and there's no use you denying you support this slavery
every time you buy chocolate. That being so, according
to your logic, those black kids don't have any rights and
aren't even deserving of them because you earlier wrote;

"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
it proves YOU don't believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

This proves you're the hypocrite as described in
your opening post to this thread when you wrote;

"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>>slave labor. It isn't.
>
>
> There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,

None. It doesn't exist. Their labor market doesn't
work as labor markets work in developed economies, but
there is no slavery. Indentured servitude and slavery
are not the same thing.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >
> >>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> >>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> >>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> >>slave labor. It isn't.
> >
> >
> > There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
>
> None. It doesn't exist.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.

WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html


Knight Ridder News Service
June 28, 2001
By Sumana Chatterjee

Jun. 28--WASHINGTON--After months of saying there
was little or no evidence of child slavery on cocoa farms
in Ivory Coast, chocolate manufacturers and their industry
groups are ratcheting up global efforts to combat the
problem. The U.S. government is investigating whether to
tell its agencies to stop buying cocoa products because
of the Ivory Coast slavery, a Labor Department spokesman
said Wednesday. A joint industry-government survey of
cocoa farms begins next month, and the international cocoa
industry has called a special meeting for July to discuss
ways to end slavery on the farms that supply cocoa beans.
http://tinyurl.com/tbs9

The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

There is no denying these facts on child slave labour,
and there's no use you denying you support this slavery
every time you buy chocolate. That being so, according
to your logic, those black kids don't have any rights and
aren't even deserving of them because you earlier wrote;

"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
it proves YOU don't believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

This proves you're the hypocrite as described in
your opening post to this thread when you wrote;

"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
>>
>>None. It doesn't exist.
>
>
> There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.

It doesn't exist. What you keep tiresomely reposting,
apparently without having read it (we don't expect much
analysis from uneducated greasemonkeys) talks about
indentured servitude, not slavery.

"Derek" > wrote >
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote

[..]
> > >>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> > >>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> > >>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> > >>>>slave labor. It isn't.
> > >>>
> > >>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
> > >>
> > >>None. It doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
> >
> > It doesn't exist.
>
> It was there a minute ago. What've you done with it?

Instead of going back and forth endlessly about a semantic difference, why
not make the claim that one supports "indentured servitude" by consuming
these products? Doesn't that present your point just as well?

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:48:26 -0500, "damon" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> damon wrote:
>>
>> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> > k.net...
>> >
>> >>Derek wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > k.net...
>> >
>> >>>>Derek wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > k.net...
>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Dreck lied about my logic.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
>> >>>>>hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
>> >>>>>thread when you wrote;
>> >>>>>"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
>> >>>>>standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
>> >>>>>are hypocrites, and bad people."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>That's a true statement: people who advocate that
>> >>>>everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
>> >>>>themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
>> >>>>people.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>That's you.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>Because you earlier wrote;
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>"According to my logic, if you knowingly continue
>> >>>>>to buy chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat
>> >>>>>lard-ass - then YOU do not respect the rights of
>> >>>>>the children. It doesn't prove they don't have any;
>> >>>>>it proves YOU don't believe they do."
>> >>>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
>> >>>>the rights you claim the children have.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.
>> >>
>> >>Which you do.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>>But earlier,
>> >>>>you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
>> >>>>knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
>> >>>>don't have rights.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.
>> >>
>> >>No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
>> >>that something is so, and something being so, are not
>> >>equivalent.
>> >>
>> >>You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
>> >>debate.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does
>buying
>> > chocalte have to do with children's rights?
>> > And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.
>>
>> Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>> (and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>> the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>> slave labor. It isn't. Kids are "leased" into
>> indentured servitude by their parents. It's for a
>> fixed term, and the children are paid a wage, even if
>> it's their parents who collect it. It's the kind of
>> thing that goes in poor countries.
>>
>> It's brought up, here, by smarmy "animal rights
>> activists" who cannot address their complicity in the
>> violation of the "rights" they say animals ought to
>> have, except by trying to engage in a _tu quoque_ argument.
>>
>
>Thanks for the info. Man these animal rights dweebs are ****in insane.
>

Strange how the deviants who support child/animal abuse would say
that. Thankfully the rest of the civilized world agrees with us, even
if the wheels of justice do sometimes move somewhat slowly.
Face it pervert, your cards are marked.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> >>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> >>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> >>>>slave labor. It isn't.
> >>>
> >>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
> >>
> >>None. It doesn't exist.
> >
> > There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
>
> It doesn't exist.

It was there a minute ago. What've you done with it?

"Derek" > wrote ...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>
> > Instead of going back and forth endlessly about a semantic difference,
why
> > not make the claim that one supports "indentured servitude" by consuming
> > these products? Doesn't that present your point just as well?
> >
> No. Indentured servitude is miles apart from the slavery
> that does exist all over the World. Do you deny child
> slavery exists, Dutch, for the record? Look at the evidence
> again first before committing yourself. Are they all lying?

You're using scandal rag reporters' rhetoric to define a word which in
correct language has a totally different meaning. You did the same when a
report came across the wire of an "Animal Rights" bill in the German
legislature. You took that reporter's terminology to mean "Animal Rights" in
the radical sense when in fact the bill didn't propose to end the breeding
and sale of livestock at all.

There are plenty of inequities in the world labour market, you don't have to
go the Ivory Coast to find them, but nowhere is there uncontrolled,
sanctioned, deliberate and wanton killing of labourers as there is killing
of animals in agriculture. Your tu quoque falls flat on it's face and this
dispute over the term slavery is just semantic wrangling.

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>>>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>>>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>>>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
>>>>
>>>>None. It doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
>>
>>It doesn't exist.
>
> It was there a minute ago.

"It" wasn't.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> >>>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> >>>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> >>>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
> >>>>
> >>>>None. It doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
> >>
> >>It doesn't exist.
> >
> > It was there a minute ago.
>
> "It" wasn't.
>
Hand "it" back.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote >
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote
>
> [..]
> > > >>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> > > >>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> > > >>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> > > >>>>slave labor. It isn't.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
> > > >>
> > > >>None. It doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > > There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
> > >
> > > It doesn't exist.
> >
> > It was there a minute ago. What've you done with it?
>
> Instead of going back and forth endlessly about a semantic difference, why
> not make the claim that one supports "indentured servitude" by consuming
> these products? Doesn't that present your point just as well?
>
No. Indentured servitude is miles apart from the slavery
that does exist all over the World. Do you deny child
slavery exists, Dutch, for the record? Look at the evidence
again first before committing yourself. Are they all lying?

WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html


Knight Ridder News Service
June 28, 2001
By Sumana Chatterjee

Jun. 28--WASHINGTON--After months of saying there
was little or no evidence of child slavery on cocoa farms
in Ivory Coast, chocolate manufacturers and their industry
groups are ratcheting up global efforts to combat the
problem. The U.S. government is investigating whether to
tell its agencies to stop buying cocoa products because
of the Ivory Coast slavery, a Labor Department spokesman
said Wednesday. A joint industry-government survey of
cocoa farms begins next month, and the international cocoa
industry has called a special meeting for July to discuss
ways to end slavery on the farms that supply cocoa beans.
http://tinyurl.com/tbs9

The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>>>>>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>>>>>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>>>>>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>None. It doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>It was there a minute ago.
>>
>>"It" wasn't.
>>
>
> Hand "it" back.

There was no "it" to begin with, shithead.

Dutch wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote >
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote
>
>
> [..]
>
>>>>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
>>>>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
>>>>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
>>>>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
>>>>>
>>>>>None. It doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
>>>
>>>It doesn't exist.
>>
>>It was there a minute ago. What've you done with it?
>
>
> Instead of going back and forth endlessly about a semantic difference, why
> not make the claim that one supports "indentured servitude" by consuming
> these products? Doesn't that present your point just as well?

No, not really. It doesn't allow him as easily to try
to step onto a non-existent moral pedestal.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote ...
> >
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >
> > > Instead of going back and forth endlessly about a semantic difference,
> why
> > > not make the claim that one supports "indentured servitude" by consuming
> > > these products? Doesn't that present your point just as well?
> > >
> > No. Indentured servitude is miles apart from the slavery
> > that does exist all over the World. Do you deny child
> > slavery exists, Dutch, for the record? Look at the evidence
> > again first before committing yourself. Are they all lying?
>
> You're using scandal rag reporters' rhetoric to define a word which in
> correct language has a totally different meaning.

That evidence was not rag reporters rhetoric. There is clear
evidence, not least from The UK's parliamentary publications
office, UNICEF and Anti-slavery International,

[4 May 2001
Brian Wilson, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Minister
of State, on 4 May met representatives of the Côte d'Ivoire
and Ghana governments as well as from the cocoa and
chocolate industry on the issue of slave labour in the cocoa
industry.

The meeting has resulted in agreement to establish a task
force comprising government, industry and trade, and
non-governmental organisations to address the issue of
forced labour in West African cocoa production.

"It is clear that forced labour is used in some sectors of
the cocoa industry, though there is no evidence it is
widespread. It is not a problem unique to West Africa, or
to the cocoa industry. But it must be combated wherever
it is found," the UK Government said.

Anti-Slavery International welcomes the Government's call
for forced labour to be combated where ever it is found and
recognition that it is used in some sectors of the cocoa industry.
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/...ocoa040501.htm

[Millions of others work under horrific circumstances.
They may be trafficked (1.2 million), forced into debt
bondage or other forms of slavery (5.7 million), into
prostitution and pornography (1.8 million), into
participating in armed conflict (0.3 million) or other illicit
activities (0.6 million). However, the vast majority of
child labourers - 70 per cent or more - work in agriculture.]
Updated 04 August 2003
http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html

They have acknowledged it, and admitted
responsibility for it too.
[On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

You did the same when a
> report came across the wire of an "Animal Rights" bill in the German
> legislature. You took that reporter's terminology to mean "Animal Rights" in
> the radical sense when in fact the bill didn't propose to end the breeding
> and sale of livestock at all.
>
> There are plenty of inequities in the world labour market, you don't have to
> go the Ivory Coast to find them, but nowhere is there uncontrolled,
> sanctioned, deliberate and wanton killing of labourers as there is killing
> of animals in agriculture. Your tu quoque falls flat on it's face and this
> dispute over the term slavery is just semantic wrangling.
>
Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Some people with more time on their hands than sense
> >>>>>>>>(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
> >>>>>>>>the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
> >>>>>>>>slave labor. It isn't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>None. It doesn't exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>>It was there a minute ago.
> >>
> >>"It" wasn't.
> >
> > Hand "it" back.
>
> There was no "it" to begin with, shithead.
>
For someone who insists collateral deaths exists by the
billion without even a shred of evidence to back his
claim, denying child slavery exist in the face of all the
evidence against you must be child's play.

"Derek" > wrote

> Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?

Define it.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote
>
> > Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?
>
> Define it.
>
I don't need to, because we all know what slavery
is, but that answer you just gave shows that you
want to pretend it doesn't exist, and this is so you
can continue making the claim that vegans are
responsible for the collateral deaths caused by farmers
while consumers of goods produce by slave labour aren't.
What a hoot!

Derek wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?
>>
>>Define it.
>>
>
> I don't need to, because we all know what slavery
> is,

Doesn't cut it, you fat ****.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:30:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
wrote:
>
> >Derek wrote:
> >
> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >>>"Derek" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?
> >>>
> >>>Define it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't need to, because we all know what slavery
> >> is,
> >
> >Doesn't cut it, you fat ****.
>
> Do you and your friend Dutch dismiss the existence of child slavery?

How do you define "child slavery"?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Derek" > wrote
> >
> > > Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?
> >
> > Define it.
> >
> I don't need to, because we all know what slavery
> is,

As usual, you foolishly ASSume that words have singular meanings when in
fact their meanings must be expressly clarified for each situation.

I assume from your answer that by slavery you mean the type of race slavery
that existed in the US in the 1700's and 1800's. Or do you mean underpaid,
underaged workers who have had their futures bartered away by their
families?

> but that answer you just gave shows that you
> want to pretend it doesn't exist, and this is so you
> can continue making the claim that vegans are
> responsible for the collateral deaths caused by farmers
> while consumers of goods produce by slave labour aren't.
> What a hoot!

Consumers ARE responsible for the means of production of their goods. Once
they become aware of the means they become acutely responsible.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:30:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
wrote:
>
> >Derek wrote:
> >
> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >>>"Derek" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Answer the question. Do you think child slavery exists?
> >>>
> >>>Define it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't need to, because we all know what slavery
> >> is,
> >
> >Doesn't cut it, you fat ****.
>
> Do you and your friend Dutch dismiss the existence of child slavery?

I dismiss "child slavery", not it's existence, but the weak tu quoque
argument it's being presented as.