> slobbered on the keyboard and puked up..

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:16:08 -0700, "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.
>
> Etter opposes "AR", and there are plenty of examples of it. There are
> no examples of you and the Gonad opposing it.

You just proved yourself again to be the biggest moron of all time.

[..]

> >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.
>
> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".

An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
****wit..
>
> >--especially any alternative which
> >> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
> >> > animals.
> >
> >That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
>
> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal
welfare.

That's brilliant.

> You don't.

I support AW for animals once they are born. You argue that I must advocate
them being born to be an AW advocate, that's erroneous.

> >> > 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.
>
> You insist that only the animals' deaths are worthy of consideration

Not just their deaths, the fact that we *deliberately kill* them is morally
considerable.

> but
> their lives are not,

Their lives are not per se a moral issue.

> meaning that someone would have to be an idiot to believe
> you support animal welfare.

No, one would have to be an idiot (i.e. you) to fail to understand that AW
only applies to animals that are born. Ensuring that they are born is not a
moral issue, it's a matter of convenience and need.

> >There would be NO *moral* loss if there were NO more livestock in the
world.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >> Otherwise, I'm sure that is an issue most outsiders wouldn't think to
> >> lose any sleep over.
> >>
> >> > Though their position has been clear for all to see, we now have
> >> > absolute proof that both Dutch and the Gonad are "ARAs" who accept
> >> > the beliefs of one of the earliest fathers of the "AR" concept, and
one
> >> > of the earliest promoters of vegetarianism. That early father of "AR"
> >was
> >> > Henry S. Salt. Here is absolute proof that they both accept Salt's
> >beliefs
> >> > ...this particular incredibly anthropomorphic example is from a
fantasy
> >that
> >> > they consider to be the position of pigs:
> >
> >
> >****wit doesn't know what a rhetorical device is. He's a poorly educated
> >mimimum-wage bozo redneck who posts here because he think it makes him
our
> >intellectual match.
> [...]
>
> No.

Yes

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:02:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> slobbered on the keyboard and puked up..
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:16:08 -0700, "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.
>>
>> Etter opposes "AR", and there are plenty of examples of it. There are
>> no examples of you and the Gonad opposing it.
>
>You just proved yourself again to be the biggest moron of all time.
>
>[..]
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".
>
>An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
>****wit..

Let's see an example of how you advocate it.

>> >--especially any alternative which
>> >> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
>> >> > animals.
>> >
>> >That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
>>
>> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal
>welfare.
>
>That's brilliant.
>
>> You don't.
>
>I support AW for animals once they are born.

With no thought of providing decent welfare for those who will be
born in the future.

>You argue that I must advocate
>them being born to be an AW advocate,

And you don't. You advocate acceptance of your elimination objective
simply because there would be no moral loss, and oppose consideration
of deliberately contributing to decent lives for farm animals because you
say it's not worthy of moral consideration. But that's a lie. You very very
obviously believe it's worthy of moral consideration, which is the reason
you oppose the suggestion that people give it that consideration.

****wit David Harrison choked:

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:02:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>

>>> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".
>>
>>An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
>>****wit..
>
>
> Let's see an example of how you advocate it.

**** off, chickenshit.


>>>>That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
>>>
>>> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal welfare.
>>
>>That's brilliant.
>>
>>
>>>You don't.

He does. YOU don't, ****wit.

>>
>>I support AW for animals once they are born.
>
>
> With no thought of providing decent welfare for those who will be
> born in the future.

That's a lie, ****wit. What he DOESN'T support is
translating the concern for "future farm animal
welfare" into a ****witted moral imperative that such
animals *ought* to be born.

Face it, ****wit: you do, and it's stupid and
illogical to do so.

>
>
>>You argue that I must advocate
>>them being born to be an AW advocate,
>
>
> And you don't.

Right: he does not believe that he MUST advocate them
being born in order to be an AW advocate. He is
correct; you are wrong.

> You advocate acceptance of your elimination objective

No, he doesn't. Stop lying, ****wit. First, he
doesn't harbor any "elimination objective" (there's
your SHIT SHIT SHIT ignorant cocksucking redneck style
again). Second, he does NOT advocate anyone else's
"elimination objective".

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

> wrote
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:02:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".
> >
> >An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
> >****wit..
>
> Let's see an example of how you advocate it.

I advocate that people consume animal products if they so desire, and that
they do without guilt.

No ARA wuld say that.

Furthermore, I strongly advise that they do not need bizarre
rationalizations like "uh, at least the animal got to experience life...
hyuk, hyuk.."


> >> >--especially any alternative which
> >> >> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for
farm
> >> >> > animals.
> >> >
> >> >That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
> >>
> >> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal
> >welfare.
> >
> >That's brilliant.
> >
> >> You don't.
> >
> >I support AW for animals once they are born.
>
> With no thought of providing decent welfare for those who will be
> born in the future.

Welfare does not apply to animals until they are born.

> >You argue that I must advocate
> >them being born to be an AW advocate,
>
> And you don't.

I advocate them being born.

> You advocate acceptance of your elimination objective

Why are inventing a position I do not hold?

> simply because there would be no moral loss,

There wouldn't be a moral loss, there would a big practical loss though.

> and oppose consideration
> of deliberately contributing to decent lives for farm animals

You hypocrital phoney, you don't even seek out free range eggs because you
think "it won't make a difference", and you accuse me of not considering
decent lives for farm animals. You oppose PeTA unequivocally without
consideration for the many improvements in animal welfare they have helped
to acheive.

> because you
> say it's not worthy of moral consideration.

It's not, it's worthy of practical consideration.

> But that's a lie.

No, it's a fact.

> You very very
> obviously believe it's worthy of moral consideration,

Even though I say it isn't?

> which is the reason
> you oppose the suggestion that people give it that consideration.

You're royally ****ed up man. Your game is dead in the water, accept it.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:01:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:02:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".
>> >
>> >An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
>> >****wit..
>>
>> Let's see an example of how you advocate it.
>
>I advocate that people consume animal products if they so desire, and that
>they do without guilt.
>
>No ARA wuld say that.

LOL! That's exactly the type of meaningless thing they would say
if they were pretending not to be one. They--meaning you--would
present the appearance of being completely inconsiderate of the
animals, so only inconsiderate people would want to be like you.

>Furthermore, I strongly advise that they do not need bizarre
>rationalizations like "uh, at least the animal got to experience life...

Uh, billions of them do...

>hyuk, hyuk.."
>
>
>> >> >--especially any alternative which
>> >> >> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for
>farm
>> >> >> > animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
>> >>
>> >> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal
>> >welfare.
>> >
>> >That's brilliant.
>> >
>> >> You don't.
>> >
>> >I support AW for animals once they are born.
>>
>> With no thought of providing decent welfare for those who will be
>> born in the future.
>
>Welfare does not apply to animals until they are born.

If farmers "thought" like you advocate, welfare would sure be a
lot worse than it is. Imagine a farmer saying to one of his helpers,
'Well, now that we have 10 thousand day old chicks we'd better
get started building a place to keep them'.

>> >You argue that I must advocate
>> >them being born to be an AW advocate,
>>
>> And you don't.
>
>I advocate them being born.

Then leave me the **** alone.

>> You advocate acceptance of your elimination objective
>
>Why are inventing a position I do not hold?
>
>> simply because there would be no moral loss,
>
>There wouldn't be a moral loss, there would a big practical loss though.
>
>> and oppose consideration
>> of deliberately contributing to decent lives for farm animals
>
>You hypocrital phoney, you don't even seek out free range eggs because you
>think "it won't make a difference", and you accuse me of not considering
>decent lives for farm animals. You oppose PeTA unequivocally without
>consideration for the many improvements in animal welfare they have helped
>to acheive.
>
>> because you
>> say it's not worthy of moral consideration.
>
>It's not, it's worthy of practical consideration.
>
>> But that's a lie.
>
>No, it's a fact.
>
>> You very very
>> obviously believe it's worthy of moral consideration,
>
>Even though I say it isn't?
>
>> which is the reason
>> you oppose the suggestion that people give it that consideration.
>
>You're royally ****ed up man. Your game is dead in the water, accept it.
>
>

> wrote
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:01:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

> >> >> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".
> >> >
> >> >An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
> >> >****wit..
> >>
> >> Let's see an example of how you advocate it.
> >
> >I advocate that people consume animal products if they so desire, and
that
> >they do without guilt.
> >
> >No ARA would say that.
>
> LOL! That's exactly the type of meaningless thing they would say

It's a direct and explicit repudiation of veganism and AR.

[..]
> >Furthermore, I strongly advise that they do not need bizarre
> >rationalizations like "uh, at least the animal got to experience life...
>
> Uh, billions of them do...

That doesn't mean you can use it as a rationalization.

[..]

> >> >You argue that I must advocate
> >> >them being born to be an AW advocate,
> >>
> >> And you don't.
> >
> >I advocate them being born.
>
> Then leave me the **** alone.

Gladly, as soon as you stop promoting the Logic of the Larder.