About Us

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. 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.
One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
consider any alternative to veg*nism--especially any alternative which
would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
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.

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:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID: >

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

". . . I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in
no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake,
but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end
barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter >
Reply-To:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.philosophy
Subject: Why existence per se cannot be a benefit
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:38:34 GMT

An English philosopher named Henry Salt wrote a succinct and
compelling refutation of the (il)logic of the larder nearly
100 years ago; you can read it at http://tinyurl.com/3fvo4
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Having established without doubt that they accept the position of Henry
Salt, here is proof of what Salt, Dutch and the Gonad stand for:
__________________________________________________ _______
History of Vegetarianism
Henry S. Salt (1851-1939)
On Henry Salt's 'Animal Rights'

by Stephen Ronan

The philosophical basis for animal protection using the
concept of "rights" is not, as many believe, a recent
phenomenon. One of the classic books on the subject was
published in 1892 by the great humanitarian Henry Salt.
His book is entitled "Animals' Rights: Considered in
Relation to Social Progress."

Peter Singer, in a preface to the Society for Animal
Rights edition, states, "More momentous still was [Salt's]
influence on Gandhi, whom Salt had befriended when Gandhi
first arrived in England, alone, unknown and unable to
find vegetarian food. Gandhi later wrote that he owed his
thoughts about civil disobedience and non-cooperation to
Salt's book on the then little-known American radical,
Henry Thoreau."

Gandhi also, apparently, once stated, "It was Mr. Salt's
book, "A Plea for Vegetarianism", which showed me why,
apart from hereditary habit, and apart from my adherence
to a vow administered to me by my mother, it was right
to be a vegetarian. He showed me why it was a moral duty
incumbent on vegetarians not to live upon fellow-animals."

The following are the words of Henry Salt excerpted from
the start of his 1892 book, "Animals' Rights: Considered
in Relation to Social Progress."

ANIMALS' RIGHTS: Considered in Relation to Social Progress

From Preface:

We have to decide, not whether the practice of fox-hunting,
for example, is more, or less, cruel than vivisection, but
whether all practices which inflict unnecessary pain on
sentient beings are not incompatible with the higher
instincts of humanity.

CHAPTER 1: The Principle of Animals' Rights

Have the lower animals "rights?" Undoubtedly--if men have.
That is the point I wish to make evident in this opening
chapter.
[...]
http://www.ivu.org/history/salt/rights.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and the Gonad are
dishonest "ARAs", and those of you who have been fooled by them
into unreasonably believing they are "AR" opponents, the proof of
their position is not laid before you. Those of you who believed them
to be "AR" opponents are likely to experience cognitive dissonance,
creating a state of denial in which you will still try to cling to the
absurd notion that your heros are not really what they have been
shown to be. But the proof of their true position has been exposed,
and you would do better to simply accept it.

i'm gone for a while while pursuing my masters degree and come back to this.
nice to know some things haven't changed here. *heh*

Megan

p.s. for those who are curious, i did pass my exam and got my masters
degree. :-D

Megan Milligan wrote:

> i'm gone for a while while pursuing my masters degree and come back to this.
> nice to know some things haven't changed here. *heh*
>
> Megan
>
> p.s. for those who are curious, i did pass my exam and got my masters
> degree. :-D

Congratulations. I hope it's in a sensible and marketable field.

Megan wrote:
>i'm gone for a while while pursuing my masters degree and come back to this.
>nice to know some things haven't changed here. *heh*
>
>Megan

Congratulations on finishing your degree! I haven't been reading the group
since around the beginning of the year...just popped back in to see if anything
was different only to find a batch of recipes from Mr.Falafel :-). Yippee!
What a nice surprise.

Cheers,

Fritz

Fritz wrote:
> Congratulations on finishing your degree! I haven't been reading the group
> since around the beginning of the year...just popped back in to see if anything
> was different only to find a batch of recipes from Mr.Falafel :-).

They're not from Lindsay, they're from other authors in violation of their
respective copyrights.

> Yippee!

Easily amused, aren't ya.

> What a nice surprise.

Just wait 'til the lawyers representing those authors start contacting him with
cease and desist orders.

****wit David Harrison choked wrote:

> For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on
> referred to dishonestly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
> "ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents.

You've failed, ****wit, because you don't believe it
yourself. You're merely trying to be insulting in as
cheaply dishonest a way as possible.

> They did it
> attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents

No. First, we didn't do "it". Secondly, neither Dutch
nor I was trying to "win the confidence" of anyone; we
already HAD it, ****wit, in my case because I was
correctly seen as an opponent of "ar", and in Dutch's
because he made an open, honest repudiation of it.

ALL we were doing, ****wit, is showing that *your*
****witted tale is NOT opposition to "ar"; it's pure
****wittery, THAT'S ALL. It's rubbish; crap; bullshit.

> Ball's character was also designed to
> make "AR" opponents appear as childish,

No, ****wit: only YOU.

> One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
> consider any alternative to veg*nism

No, ****wit: only yours, because it isn't an
alternative, it's illogical nonsense.

> Though their position has been clear for all to see, we now have
> absolute proof that both Dutch and Ball are "ARAs"

No, ****wit, you don't. More to the point, ****wit NO
ONE believes you.

> 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:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
> for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>
> ". . . I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in
> no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
> If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
> hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake,
> but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end
> barbarously butchered."
>
> Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
> then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

And that's RIGHT, ****wit. Your self-serving bullshit
is to imagine that you have "given the 'gift' of life"
to the pig. You haven't, and in order to drive the
point home, Salt creates the fable of a talking pig who
explains it to the philosopher. None of us - not Salt,
not Dutch, not Usual Suspect, not me, not Common Man,
not Abner Hale, not John Mercer, not Martin Martens -
none of us believes pigs can talk, nor that they have
an awareness of their fate. We all understand it is
merely a literary device by Salt to get his CORRECT
point of view across: existence is not a "benefit"
that meat eaters have given to animals.

> For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and Ball are
> dishonest "ARAs"

NO ONE has suspected that, ****wit, including you. No one.

"Dieter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> ****wit David Harrison choked wrote:
>
> > For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on
> > referred to dishonestly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
> > "ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents.
>
> You've failed, ****wit, because you don't believe it
> yourself. You're merely trying to be insulting in as
> cheaply dishonest a way as possible.
>
> > They did it
> > attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents
>
> No. First, we didn't do "it". Secondly, neither Dutch
> nor I was trying to "win the confidence" of anyone; we
> already HAD it, ****wit, in my case because I was
> correctly seen as an opponent of "ar", and in Dutch's
> because he made an open, honest repudiation of it.
>
> ALL we were doing, ****wit, is showing that *your*
> ****witted tale is NOT opposition to "ar"; it's pure
> ****wittery, THAT'S ALL. It's rubbish; crap; bullshit.
>
>
> > Ball's character was also designed to
> > make "AR" opponents appear as childish,
>
> No, ****wit: only YOU.
>
>
> > One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
> > consider any alternative to veg*nism
>
> No, ****wit: only yours, because it isn't an
> alternative, it's illogical nonsense.
>
>
> > Though their position has been clear for all to see, we now have
> > absolute proof that both Dutch and Ball are "ARAs"
>
> No, ****wit, you don't. More to the point, ****wit NO
> ONE believes you.
>
>
> > 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:
> > __________________________________________________ _______
> > From: "Dutch" >
> > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> > Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
> > Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
> > Message-ID: >
> >
> > Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt
speaks
> > for the pig here, you ought to listen.
> >
> > ". . . I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection
was in
> > no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own
butchery.
> > If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though
thou
> > hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake,
> > but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and
at the end
> > barbarously butchered."
> >
> > Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my
flesh,
> > then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
>
> And that's RIGHT, ****wit. Your self-serving bullshit
> is to imagine that you have "given the 'gift' of life"
> to the pig. You haven't, and in order to drive the
> point home, Salt creates the fable of a talking pig who
> explains it to the philosopher. None of us - not Salt,
> not Dutch, not Usual Suspect, not me, not Common Man,
> not Abner Hale, not John Mercer, not Martin Martens -
> none of us believes pigs can talk, nor that they have
> an awareness of their fate. We all understand it is
> merely a literary device by Salt to get his CORRECT
> point of view across: existence is not a "benefit"
> that meat eaters have given to animals.
>
> > For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and Ball are
> > dishonest "ARAs"
>
> NO ONE has suspected that, ****wit, including you. No one.

I have ~~jonnie~~.
>

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.

>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".
>
>> 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?
>
>> > 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.

Yes. There is no doubt about it.

>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,

You are both "ARAs".

>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?

LOL! So he's not a turd any more? LOL...you people are pathetic.

>> 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.
>
>> > 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.

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

>--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.

If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal welfare.
You don't.

>> > 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 but
their lives are not, meaning that someone would have to be an idiot to believe
you support animal welfare.

>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. I think you are stupider than I could be even if I tried. For example: I could
not become stupid enough to believe nothing has ever benefitted from existence,
or that pigs know they will be made into ham and sausage, or that we should think
of child abuse and raising animals for food in the same way, or that humans can
**** possums. You are both liars, you are both "ARAs", and you may well both be
the same Gonad.

wrote:

> 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 Ball opposing it.

Yes, there are. They are almost identical to Rick's.

>>>>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".

No. That's paranoid nonsense.

>>>>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.
>
>
> Yes.

No. It's absurd, and you KNOW it's false.

>>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,
>
>
> You are both "ARAs".

No. Neither Dutch nor I is an "ara", and you know it,
****wit.

>
>
>>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?

I never posted as her.

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

He isn't an "ara", and you know it. Stop lying.

>
>
>>>>--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.
>
>
> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal welfare.
> You don't.

He does. I do.

What we don't allow you to do is take conditional
support for animal welfare - IF the animals exist - and
invalidly turn it into absolute support for creating
farm animals.

We stop you.

>
>
>>>>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

No. We say that only their deaths are worthy of MORAL
consideration. That's true; there is no moral value
WHATEVER in their "getting to experience life". You do
not do a good deed by causing animals to live; you are
not giving them the "gift of life", you are not giving
them a "benefit".

> their lives are not, meaning that someone would have to be an idiot to believe
> you support animal welfare.

No. He DOES support animal welfare, as do I, but only
IF the animals exist. Support for animal welfare IF
the animals exist does not logically or rationally
translate to support for causing animals to exist.

>>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. You are a high school drop-out working for
minimum wage. You are a redneck, and you are a bozo.

> I think you are stupider than I could be even if I tried.

No, you don't. You know that you are stupid, that you
don't know a single relevant thing to the discussion.

Jon Ball socking as Dieter > wrote in message link.net>...
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:16:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Auntie Nettles" > wrote
[...]
> >>
> >>>(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?
>
> I never posted as her.

How cute. A small technicality for an even smaller man to hide
behind.

So maybe you haven't been posting as "me", but you HAVE been forging
MY email address in both your "Wilson Woods" and your "Dieter" sock
nyms. It's MY email address people see in their thread list.

I suppose it's your little way of showing defiance to those who've
pointed out that you tend to enjoy socking and forging email addies.
But you can't run away from yourself and your track record, Ball...
and as long as you continue using the stolen addy, I'll continue to
pop up just to demonstrate to the readers the sort of unethical
tactics you enjoy resorting to.

(*Not that I need to put too much effort into it, since people tend to
find out soon enough).

> 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.

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.

>> 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. 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. 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.

Of course, if it's just one person holding that viewpoint, that isn't
something I would get a coronary over.

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.

> 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.

"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.

Yet he has the grip of death on it.

> >> 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." :-)

Exactly

[..]
> >He stopped posting as you long ago, right?
>
> Nope. He still uses my addy in both his "Wilson Woods" and "Dieter"
> nyms. I view that as an invitation, of sorts.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;^\

> >> 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?

Bingo!

> >> > 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. 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.

Like the IRS ;^/

> Of course, if it's just one person holding that viewpoint, that isn't
> something I would get a coronary over.

Agreed. I have kilfiled him in the past, but any semi-coherent AR advocates
have crawed back into their holes, there are not that many targets left in
aaev, tpa.

>
> 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. 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.

Which ones would you recommend?

> >--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.
>
> Animal welfare is generally a good thing. Not only is it better for
> the animals, but the overall quality of the meat is better.

There you go. That doesn't translate to it being a moral good to allow
animals to "experience life" as ****wit Harrison contends.

> 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.

I agree.

> >> > 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.

I agree it would be a very detrimental thing to eliminate livestock, but
assuming that *we decided* for practical reasons to eliminate those species
which we created in the first place, it would not be any moral crime.

...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.

Sure, I'm quite sure something like that would take place.

> 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.

That would be more like sentimental value than moral value.

> >> 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. But perhaps vegetarians do. I'm assuming vegetarian products
> mimic the animal products because the manufacturers know people tend
> to buy things that are more familiar and have been proven successful
> in terms of the flavours people like to eat (especially things we
> might have been raised on in childhood.)
>
> In other words, So What? It's known that many animals become attuned
> to liking certain foods they were fed during a crucial stage of their
> development. Perhaps something similar holds true for humans.

We seem to have a lot to agree about.

[..]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Jonathan Ball, nomination for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet ( Is Benfez Jonathan Ball?)	Auntie Nettles	Vegan	8	21-03-2012 05:28 PM
"ARAs" stick together to set their "trap"	[email protected]	Vegan	11	08-02-2005 06:42 AM
What "ARAs" mean....	[email protected]	Vegan	33	15-06-2004 12:42 AM
exposing Jonathan Ball & Dutch as "ARAs"	[email protected]	Vegan	9	14-06-2004 08:54 PM
No need for farmed animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball	ipse dixit	Vegan	6	10-01-2004 08:17 PM

Menu

About Us