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.

****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.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:59:54 GMT, wrote:

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

>>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.

An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
not be the case, I don't know. But I am opposed to the battery method
of keeping chickens, even though I'm not opposed to the open house
method of raising broilers, their parents, and the parents of the battery
hens.

wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:59:54 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
> made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
> kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
> not be the case, I don't know.

And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
Chicken McNuggets. It's why you're a lying hypocrite.

> But I am opposed to the battery method
> of keeping chickens,

No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard aka The Gonad wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:59:54 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
>> made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
>> kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
>> not be the case, I don't know.
>
>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>Chicken McNuggets.

How many times have I eaten them Gonad?

>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>
>> But I am opposed to the battery method
>> of keeping chickens,
>
>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.

I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
there is no way you can convince me that it would.

****wit David Harrison choked:

> Dieter wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>> An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
>>>made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
>>>kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
>>>not be the case, I don't know.
>>
>>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>>Chicken McNuggets.
>
>
> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?

You eat them, ****wit.

>
>
>>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>>
>>
>>>But I am opposed to the battery method
>>>of keeping chickens,
>>
>>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> raising the chickens.

That's a LIE, ****wit. You are NOT opposed to battery
use in raising chickens. Stop lying.

You eat any old eggs and chicken you can find, ****wit.
You do NOT first check that they are "free range" or
some other kind of non-battery confined chickens.

Stop LYING, ****wit, you chickenshit cocksucker.

The stupid ignorant moron Gonad wrote:

>****wit David Harrison choked:
>
>> The stupid ignorant moron Gonad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
>>>>made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
>>>>kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
>>>>not be the case, I don't know.
>>>
>>>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>>>Chicken McNuggets.
>>
>>
>> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?
>
>You eat them, ****wit.

How many times have I eaten them Gonad?

>>>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But I am opposed to the battery method
>>>>of keeping chickens,
>>>
>>>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>>>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>>>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>>
>>
>> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>> raising the chickens.
>
>That's a LIE, ****wit. You are NOT opposed to battery
>use in raising chickens.

That's a lie.

>Stop lying.

If you stopped lying, you would have pretty much nothing
to say Gonad.

>You eat any old eggs and chicken you can find, ****wit.
> You do NOT first check that they are "free range" or
>some other kind of non-battery confined chickens.

You "ARAs" really are ignorant as well as stupid and
dishonest. Not a surprising combination. But to show how
much you know, tell us how broiler chickens are raised.
Of course you can't do it, because you haven't got a clue.
Gonad. You stupid ignorant moron.

>Stop LYING, ****wit, you chickenshit cocksucker.

****wit David Harrison choked:
> Dieter wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>
>>
>>>Dieter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>>>>Chicken McNuggets.
>>>
>>>
>>> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?
>>
>>You eat them, ****wit.
>
>
> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?

You eat them, ****wit. You eat Chicken McNuggets, you
eat grain-fed beef, you eat whatever
low-quality-of-life meat you can get your grubby paws on.

>
>
>>>>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But I am opposed to the battery method
>>>>>of keeping chickens,
>>>>
>>>>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>>>>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>>>>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>>>raising the chickens.
>>
>>That's a LIE, ****wit. You are NOT opposed to battery
>>use in raising chickens.
>
>
> That's a lie.

That's not a lie, ****wit. You eat chicken products
and eggs from battery raised hens.

>
>
>>Stop lying.
>>
>>You eat any old eggs and chicken you can find, ****wit.
>> You do NOT first check that they are "free range" or
>>some other kind of non-battery confined chickens.
>
>
> You "ARAs" really are ignorant as well as stupid and
> dishonest.

I'm not an "ara", ****wit, which you have always known.
I'm also scrupulously honest, ****wit, which you also
have always known, and I'm smart.

You eat battery-raised chicken products.

>
>>Stop LYING, ****wit, you chickenshit cocksucker.
>
>

> wrote

> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
> >> of keeping chickens,
> >
> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>
> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> there is no way you can convince me that it would.

Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily seen, if
a million people did the same it would make a huge difference, and clearly
"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>
>> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
>> >> of keeping chickens,
>> >
>> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
>> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
>> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
>> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
>> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
>> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
>
>Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily seen, if
>a million people did the same

As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.

>it would make a huge difference, and clearly
>"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.

How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
or egg production?

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >
> >> >> But I am opposed to the battery method
> >> >> of keeping chickens,
> >> >
> >> >No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
> >> >products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
> >> >SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
> >>
> >> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> >> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> >> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> >> battery raised eggs Gonad? Regardless of what you think
> >> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> >> there is no way you can convince me that it would.
> >
> >Cop-out, of course it would make a difference. The proof is easily seen,
if
> >a million people did the same
>
> As ALWAYS your comparisons are nothing similar to reality.

Are you saying that there are not a million consumers of battery eggs?

> >it would make a huge difference, and clearly
> >"no difference at all" times a million is still no difference.
>
> How stupid. So when I die, how will it influence chicken
> or egg production?

It will decrease by an amount exactly proportional to your consumption.

Do you use the same cop-out logic to avoid bothering to vote in elections,
because your vote won't change anything?

wrote:

> Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
> Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
> Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
> Roger Whitaker/****tard aka The Gonad wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:59:54 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>> An afterthought on that: Some people have said that McNuggets are
>>>made from what are often referred to as stewer hens--the hens who were
>>>kept in battery cages for commercial egg production. That may or may
>>>not be the case, I don't know.
>>
>>And you don't CARE, ****wit. That's why YOU eat
>>Chicken McNuggets.
>
>
> How many times have I eaten them Gonad?
>
>
>>It's why you're a lying hypocrite.
>>
>>
>>>But I am opposed to the battery method
>>>of keeping chickens,
>>
>>No, you aren't, ****wit: you eat eggs and other
>>products coming from such chickens. Therefore, you
>>SUPPORT battery methods. Stop lying.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to eating eggs, just that method of
> raising the chickens. How much difference do you think
> it would make if I quit consuming products which contain
> battery raised eggs?

It doesn't matter how much direct difference it would
make, ****wit: the FACT is, you are NOT promoting
"decent lives for farm animals" with your food
purchases. You cheap, SELFISH ****.

> Regardless of what you think
> I don't believe it would make any difference at all, and
> there is no way you can convince me that it would.

Then your choice is a false one, ****wit. You are not
"promoting decent lives for farm animals", you fat
ignorant ****; you are promoting mere EXISTENCE for
farm animals, regardless of the quality of life: JUST
as I have always said you are.

You fat, hypocritical shitbag.

> 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 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? 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.

> I believe it's *very*
> important for people to always keep that fact in mind,

It's an absolutely stupid and useless thing for people to keep in mind.

> so they
> don't develop the false impression that veg*nism in some way
> helps animals.

You mean because it doesn't cause farm animals to "experience life"?

You are so easily caught out in your lies Harrison.

[..]

> >>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.

You always blurt out that idiotic mantra when we point out the stupid
irrationality of your beliefs, as if it has some relevance, it doesn't.

> 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..........

That's not the same thing at all. Rabbits, or any other type of wildlife,
are not man-made, exploited, controlled species, that's the only thing that
raises an ethical question.

> >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.

That's because she has a brain, you otoh are a moron.

> The situations are in no way similar,
> and therefore not a respectable comparison.

It's a perfectly respectable comparison ****wi, you invite such comparisons
by your position.

The truth is livestock are raised and killed for our benefit, it's food, and
it's justifiable on that basis. It's not wrong because we kill them, it's
not less wrong because they "experience life", that whole argument is
circular and corrupt.

> 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.

You don't sound clever playing schoolteacher ****wit, you just sound like
the idiot you are.

> >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. Nobody is going to accept that viewpoint exept a tiny minority
of marginals like you. There have only been two or three here in four years,
so you're no threat.

> They don't want people to consider the possibility that
> anything could be ethically equivalent or (even worse to them)
> superior to veg*nism.

That's bullshit, we oppose veganism, but in legitimate ways, not using grade
school sophistry.

> They want to create the impression that the
> elimination of farm animals would be the most ethical course humans
> could take.

No we don't, but we are not going to pretend that it would be *un*ethical
because no farm animals would "get to experience life". That argument has NO
merit, ZERO.

> 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?

Your argument has nothing to do with "decent lives" for farm animals
****wit. The fact that you eat at McD's and KFC and shop indiscriminately at
Piggly-wiggly proves that.

[..]
> 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.

Taking moral credit as you chomp into a chicken leg again ****wit? Nice
work.

[..]
> Vegetarians don't contribute to life for farm animals...at least they
> try not to.

That statement has no significance. It is NO better morally to consume meat
and thereby contribute to the lives of farm animals than it is to NOT do so.
You and ARAs are two sides of the same stupid ****witted coin.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news >
>>On 20 Jun 2004 09:04:17 -0700, (Auntie Nettles)
>
> wrote:
>
>>>Dutch wrote:

>>>>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.

One can see it plainly from the many things ****wit has
written that directly indicate it:

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

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

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

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


It's all there. ****wit CLEARLY believes that "aras"
are committing an awful moral crime by wanting to
"prevent future farm animals" from being born. ****wit
is LYING by saying it isn't a view he holds; it is
EXACTLY his view.

> 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.

That's exactly right, and here's the proof ****wit DOES
accept the "ara" position about killing animals:

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


>>...lie about my beliefs,
>
>
> He tells the truth about your beliefs and supports it with quotes.

Exactly; as above.

>
>
>>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 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? 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.
>
>
>>I believe it's *very*
>>important for people to always keep that fact in mind,
>
>
> It's an absolutely stupid and useless thing for people to keep in mind.
>
>
>>so they
>>don't develop the false impression that veg*nism in some way
>>helps animals.
>
>
> You mean because it doesn't cause farm animals to "experience life"?
>
> You are so easily caught out in your lies Harrison.
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> You always blurt out that idiotic mantra when we point out the stupid
> irrationality of your beliefs, as if it has some relevance, it doesn't.
>
>
>>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..........
>
>
> That's not the same thing at all. Rabbits, or any other type of wildlife,
> are not man-made, exploited, controlled species, that's the only thing that
> raises an ethical question.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> That's because she has a brain, you otoh are a moron.
>
>
>>The situations are in no way similar,
>>and therefore not a respectable comparison.
>
>
> It's a perfectly respectable comparison ****wi, you invite such comparisons
> by your position.
>
> The truth is livestock are raised and killed for our benefit, it's food, and
> it's justifiable on that basis. It's not wrong because we kill them, it's
> not less wrong because they "experience life", that whole argument is
> circular and corrupt.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You don't sound clever playing schoolteacher ****wit, you just sound like
> the idiot you are.
>
>
>>>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. Nobody is going to accept that viewpoint exept a tiny minority
> of marginals like you. There have only been two or three here in four years,
> so you're no threat.
>
>
>>They don't want people to consider the possibility that
>>anything could be ethically equivalent or (even worse to them)
>>superior to veg*nism.
>
>
> That's bullshit, we oppose veganism, but in legitimate ways, not using grade
> school sophistry.
>
>
>>They want to create the impression that the
>>elimination of farm animals would be the most ethical course humans
>>could take.
>
>
> No we don't, but we are not going to pretend that it would be *un*ethical
> because no farm animals would "get to experience life". That argument has NO
> merit, ZERO.
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> Your argument has nothing to do with "decent lives" for farm animals
> ****wit. The fact that you eat at McD's and KFC and shop indiscriminately at
> Piggly-wiggly proves that.
>
> [..]
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Taking moral credit as you chomp into a chicken leg again ****wit? Nice
> work.
>
> [..]
>
>> Vegetarians don't contribute to life for farm animals...at least they
>>try not to.
>
>
> That statement has no significance. It is NO better morally to consume meat
> and thereby contribute to the lives of farm animals than it is to NOT do so.
> You and ARAs are two sides of the same stupid ****witted coin.
>
>

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.

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

> >> 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,

When did I say that?

> and
> that "AR" would mean better lives for them,

When did I ever say that?

> to be believed by as many
> people as possible.

Stop erecting strawmen and deal with the real arguments we have with your
position.

> >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.

Wrong, first of all I want you to quit wriggling and admit what you believe,
that more livestock is a net good from which you can derive moral benefit.
Second I want you to understand why that is a false belief.

> Do you really think they get the majority of their money
> from people who want to see domestic animals eliminated?

Who, PeTA? No I don't.

> I don't, so I
> point out that that's what they really want.

It's not a secret.

> You don't either, and you don't
> want their contributors to stop paying for the project.

I like some of what PeTA does, even though I don't support their ultimate
goal. I'm glad people give them money because they spend it on campaigns to
expose abuse and help animals in need, and their ultimate goal is doomed to
fail anyway.

> The reason you
> Gonads keep lying about what I believe is to encourage acceptance of
> your elimination objetctive.

No, my poor paranoid friend, that's not the reason. The only elimination
objective I have in this discussion with you is the elimination of your
belief in The Logic of the Larder.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:39:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:46:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> >> 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,
>
>When did I say that?
>
>> and
>> that "AR" would mean better lives for them,
>
>When did I ever say that?
>
>> to be believed by as many
>> people as possible.
>
>Stop erecting strawmen and deal with the real arguments we have with your
>position.
>
>> >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.
>
>Wrong, first of all I want you to quit wriggling and admit what you believe,
>that more livestock is a net good from which you can derive moral benefit.
>Second I want you to understand why that is a false belief.
>
>> Do you really think they get the majority of their money
>> from people who want to see domestic animals eliminated?
>
>Who, PeTA? No I don't.
>
>> I don't, so I
>> point out that that's what they really want.
>
>It's not a secret.

Some people aren't aware of it. A couple of lines back
you seemed aware of that.

>> You don't either, and you don't
>> want their contributors to stop paying for the project.
>
>I like some of what PeTA does, even though I don't support their ultimate
>goal.

If consumers took more of an interest, groups like PeTA wouldn't have
the abuse to worry about. That's what you want to prevent.

>I'm glad people give them money because they spend it on campaigns to
>expose abuse and help animals in need, and their ultimate goal is doomed to
>fail anyway.
>
>> The reason you
>> Gonads keep lying about what I believe is to encourage acceptance of
>> your elimination objetctive.
>
>No, my poor paranoid friend, that's not the reason.

Then what is?

>The only elimination
>objective I have in this discussion with you is the elimination of your
>belief in The Logic of the Larder.

You mean my acceptance of the FACT that some farm animals
benefit from farming. Do you really expect me to believe that anyone
thinks it's okay to raise and kill animals, but it's not okay to consider
how some animals benefit from the situation? To me, if a person were
stupid enough to really think that way, they wouldn't be able to argue
about it in news groups. Therefore you must be lying about something,
and I believe you're lying about not being opposed to raising and killing
animals. Of course that's reinforced by the extreme degree to which
you're opposed to seeing people consider how some animals benefit
from farming, and reinforced yet again by you quoting from your "AR"
hero about the talking pig.

> wrote
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:39:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
> >> The reason you
> >> Gonads keep lying about what I believe is to encourage acceptance of
> >> your elimination objetctive.
> >
> >No, my poor paranoid friend, that's not the reason.
>
> Then what is?

The only elimination objective I have in this discussion with you is the
elimination of your belief in The Logic of the Larder.