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 now 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.

wrote:

> For years I've been

....making an ass of yourself. Give it a rest, Dave. Go clean your bilge or
something useful.

usual suspect wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> For years I've been
>
>
> ...making an ass of yourself. Give it a rest, Dave. Go clean your bilge

or wipe the possum jizz off your chin

> or something useful.
>

Dieter wrote:
>>> For years I've been
>>
>>
>>
>> ...making an ass of yourself. Give it a rest, Dave. Go clean your bilge
>
>
> or wipe the possum jizz off your chin

Speaking of that, did Dave ever explain who this Willie person is?

>> or something useful.
>>
>

usual suspect wrote:

> Dieter wrote:
>
>>>> For years I've been
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...making an ass of yourself. Give it a rest, Dave. Go clean your bilge
>>
>>
>>
>> or wipe the possum jizz off your chin
>
>
> Speaking of that, did Dave ever explain who this Willie person is?

No, he didn't, nor did he explain why he's using Willie
Denson's phone number in order for other Atlanta area
homosexuals to contact him for "boat rides"
(nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

Dieter wrote:
>>>>> For years I've been
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...making an ass of yourself. Give it a rest, Dave. Go clean your bilge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> or wipe the possum jizz off your chin
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking of that, did Dave ever explain who this Willie person is?
>
>
> No, he didn't, nor did he explain why he's using Willie Denson's phone
> number in order for other Atlanta area homosexuals to contact him for
> "boat rides" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

What is it with these people and houseboats? Andrew Cunanan, the homosexual
spree killer, met his demise in one.

Hey folks, kindly remove alt.food.vegan from the groups that this thread is
being x-posted to.

Thanks,

Fritz

****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.

The insane Gonad wrote:

>****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.

Yes.

>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.

That's far from all. One of your main objectives is very
obviously 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.

>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,

You "ARAs" want people to believe that no farm animals should
exist, regardless of the quality of their lives.

>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.

Salt is trying to create the impression that pigs know the
position they are in, and you agree with it. If you didn't think
that pigs know the position they are in, then you wouldn't
use a fairytale about a pig who knows the position he is
in as a "refutation" against the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.

>> For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and Ball are
>> dishonest "ARAs"
>
>NO ONE has suspected that, ****wit, including you.

Up until now I have suspected it. Now I know it to be fact
without any doubt. And further proof is that you STILL can't
provide examples of any of you supposed opposition to "AR".

wrote:
snip.

what does this matter when you guys are not more than skankbag terrorists
anyway?