"exploratory" wrote

I never said animals have a will.

Yes you did. Don't you remember this?

"No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice" for
petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their whole
lives."

You think animals are born "against their will". Everything you say is
loaded, irrational emotion, not reason.

usual suspect wrote in message news

you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq.

Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.
So, the majority of which select part of the population do
you want to talk about?

I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world,
would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates
to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right.
(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion
of THOSE AFFECTED MOST. For example, if you want to support the War
in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the
victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over
Saddam Hussein himself
and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the
reality
that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact.

In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.

I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority
who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did
anything
to acquire the knowledge, etc.
What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

exploratory wrote:
Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.
So, the majority of which select part of the population do
you want to talk about?

I have trouble believing that the majority of people in the world even
care if there is an Iraq, much less if there is a war there.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:52:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

swamp wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


swamp wrote:


Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
that he roots for injuries.


I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
understood them.

They hate USC, and no one likes ND.

Except NBC.

Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
team is whoever's playing Notre Dame.

That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC.

I did two years at community college, then completed
undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was
badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s
connections school: where young white men went to get
into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate
development or accounting, and women went to meet the
budding real estate developer or accountant to get
married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I
was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent
school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk.
USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it
still does not match UCLA academically.

At the risk of conspiracy accusations, I see nothing wrong w/
attending CCs or SC. A close friend did exactly that. I wanted to go
to Cal, but didn't quite meet its requirements out of high school.
Didn't want to go to SC back then, but its academic standing has
definitely moved up since. Longer ago than I'd care to admit.

And I like a good hit as much as
anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
kids playin' ball...

My friend was only expressing his disgust for both
schools, not truly rooting for injuries.

Yeah, I know some UCLA grads... Not too sure about them when SC's
playing... Hope you're right.

[snip]

You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?

I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I
hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated
that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale
practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing
happened to him.

I'm guessing I'm more of a sports fan than you are, but am equally
opposed to AR. I can provide decent suggestions on veggie chili
recipes in compensation

It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for
Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics.
The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly.

To each his own. I hate the Celtics. Pistons... indifferent.

I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.

I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of
a secondary Giants fan,

God save your soul...

....although I can't stand Bonds.
I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach
retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola.

I don't like the Braves for the same "America's team" reason. Guess I
hold grudges longer than you.

Fish won tonite. Anything's better than the evil empire.

--swamp

"exploratory" wrote

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self..

rectal suppository wrote:
his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's

Yes it is.

No, it wasn't censorship. He made his remarks. Nobody bleeped his words,
nobody stopped him from saying them. The fact that others remarked about
and/or criticized his hate-speech is NOT censorship. It, too, is free
speech, even when others suggest he should have chosen a more
appropriate forum for his tirade.

It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
the hell he wanted.

He did, didn't he?

It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
to air.

They did. Members of the Academy, for the most part, apparently did not
care for his out-of-bounds remarks. They booed Moore.

If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.

I don't watch much television, and I certainly don't care to watch the
wretched excesses of Hollywood types awarding each other. I heard the
remarks on news channels -- further evidence that the fat shit's
statements were NOT censored by given far more air play than they
deserved. You are a ****ing idiot if you consider THAT censorship.

Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
complained
about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
situations which THEY did not ask for.

You're the one bordering on calls of censorship. Meat advertisements
aren't exactlt free speech, though: advertising costs money.

You would defend every action of
promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.

No, see above. You have no clue about what censorship is, much less free
speech. Nobody said the fat shithead couldn't say what he did, they only
suggested he do it in a more appropriate venue. While Hollywood has been
particularly partisan in the past, most people have been civil during
awards shows. That was the point of the people -- who probably agreed
with the fat turd more than they disagreed with him -- who booed.

Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
stop?

You don't have to take a bus. I don't know what Greyhound's policies
are, but I bet that's an issue between Greyhound and their drivers. If
you don't want anything from McD's, stay on the bus. It's not that
difficult, you prat.

There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
in doing that.

Irrelevant. You're free to complain to Greyhound if it really bothers
you (though I find it awfully petty of you to whine about it).

Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.

I don't know if I would since I'm a vegetarian.

You are just jealous because his books are so popular.

I'm not jealous. He preaches to a small but frenzied choir.

According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

What polls?

Gallup, you dolt.

Baghdad residents support US presence for now - poll
14/10/2003 - 06:58:51

More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see US
troops stay longer than a few more months, but many still have
sharply mixed feelings about their presence troops, a poll says.

The Gallup poll found that 71% of the Iraqi capital’s residents
felt US troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26%
felt the troops should leave that soon.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...220&p=6798y8xx

You may be true,

I am.

and I hope you are,

Liar.

but it is ridiculously
naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
struggling to build itself out of the ruins of a war.

No, it isn't naive. Science can and does happen in the strangest places.

above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq.

That is false, at best.

It's true whether you like it or not.

Polls are not scientific,

You obviously do not understand polling.

because they do not answer
the questions people wish to ask.

Polls *may* be skewed by the way questions are asked, but even poorly
done polls can gauge public sentiment. In the case of the polling done
by every news organization in the US prior to war with Iraq, every poll
showed widespread support for taking action regardless of which
pollsters (Gallup, Harris, Pew, Quinnipiac College, et al) asked questions.

You are SO hung up on opinion
polls, like they mean ANYthing.

I'm not hung up on polls. I pointed out something that goes against what
you said previously. Stop shooting the messenger, you fudgepacker.

And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
correctness of one's argument.

I didn't say it did. Take a look at my defense of minority rights in a
democracy in my exchanges with "Jane" in the "it's too easy" thread.

I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
action
against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
notably,
Peru) and elsewhere.

Try writing your congressman and senators. Only Congerss can authorize
such military actions.

I would be all for war if it meant freeing billions
of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
countries!

Yes, you sure do have your priorities straight, misanthrope.

But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
against the violence on one side.

No, I would oppose a war for liberation of other species because it
would be a complete waste of valuable resources. I don't "preach"
anything -- I believe terrorism by ARAs is wrong.

Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.

That is just YOUR opinion.

Legally, it is a fact.

Many humans believe they DO have rights.

Appeal to popularity. Some people believed David Koresh would rise from
the dead. He hasn't. What people some believe doesn't make it so.

No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
fertilization?

Non-sequitur.

Sequitur. The OP asked a question and your answer evaded it.

I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
fertilization.

The OP responded to you with:
How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"?
In order to have will, an animal must exist first.

Your response evaded the issue and suggested he look into breeding.

HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
animals.

Yes, we do that to fulfill a demand. FWIW, male and female animals often
get together without man's interaction, knowing full well that they will
**** and have offspring. That is one of the three drives of animals:
mating, defense of territory, food.

You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
the child if the child shoots themself.

Non sequitur.

After all, YOU did not choose to make the child shoot themself.

HIMself. Singular. Still non sequitur.

But, would you argue that children
have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?

Correct, I believe children don't have rights. Minors and others deemed
incompetent, like the retarded or infirm, are afforded protections under
the law. Rights assume a measure of responsibility, and the law respects
the fact that most minors are not yet responsible. It's a legal
distinction, but a very valid one even under our current legal system
(attacks on this distinction have occurred in recent years, but the
principle remains).

Your analogy, though, remains non sequitur.

rectal suppository wrote:
The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.

Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!

I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect
and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.

What have I written that is insanity?

Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny
that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
and who suffer.

A vegetarian diet only ensures animals may not be *eaten*, not that they
will not be killed collaterally. Grain planting and harvesting are
particularly lethal for animals. See the first pic on the page linked
below. Add to that the use of pesticides, which are used even in organic
farming, transportation, etc., no food is free of animal deaths or
suffering.

http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm

They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
tenets of debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.

Such tautology is the practice of people like you, who assume that
because meat is not *eaten* that animals are not killed. You forget the
fact that animals range in farmland, and farmland is harvested using
machinery. You must count the animals who get run over by combines,
flooded by irrigation, or killed by pesticides in your assessments of
suffering and death. You choose not to do this, and instead repeat your
proclamations that because you do not *eat* animals that you are morally
responsible for preventing harm to them. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Eating venison causes the death of one deer. How many were
run over, like the fawn in the pic, harvesting your wheat, rice, or
corn? *That* is the issue. Deal with it.

The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama",
is NO exaggeration with
his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups.

Funny that you would presume to take the high road in this debate and
then allude to cartoon characters. Running out of ammo?

Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat.

I've never seen this show to which you allude (only promos), so I can
only make my a priori assessments about your watching cartoons. How old
are you, anyway?

rectal suppository wrote:
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq.

Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.

Wrong, and goal post move. Polling showed the world was evenly split on
the war. The world exists of more than the UN Security Council nations,
and more than Islamic nations. You forget that we had over forty nations
supporting us in the build up to war. More are now coming on board. Even
our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the
French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing.

I was addressing the United States population. If you disagree that a
majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find
whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations
have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts.

So, the majority of which select part of the population do
you want to talk about?

I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world,
would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates
to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right.

Non sequitur. How many bong hits did you have before you wrote this
irrelevant drivel?

(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

Plenty of reasons.

The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion
of THOSE AFFECTED MOST.

This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
full display.

For example, if you want to support the War
in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the
victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over
Saddam Hussein himself
and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the
reality
that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact.

Hey, idiot, what choice did they have? Was there ever another name on
the ballot? Some ****ing choice, huh.

In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.

Animals are neither tortured nor murdered. Murder is a crime with a
specific legal definition. I know you don't care about specific
definitions in your rush to condemn others, but you're not sincere; you
are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
processes among their own species, much less in ours. Your point is
laughably non sequitur and irrelevant.

I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority
who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did
anything to acquire the knowledge, etc.

I know. As I just wrote, you are an ideologue. You don't care about the
truth, especially since it is at odds with your agenda.

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized
minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists. Review the
list of articles in my previous replies to you. Suffering and dying for
causes is beside the point: the terrorists on 9/11 did that, but their
pursuits were entirely ignoble. Just as yours, and other ARAs', are.

Dutch wrote:

"exploratory" wrote

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self..

Wrong. It matters to me, too.

usual suspect wrote:

You forget that we had over forty nations
supporting us in the build up to war.

You mean like these:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html

Yep, Latvia has our back.

Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the
nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant and even they
were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

More are now coming on board. Even
our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the
French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing.

Are you sure that's a done deal?

I was addressing the United States population.

The US population was bamboozled right along with Ethiopia. Right-wing
zealots, like you, believe anything the State Department tells them.
You're dangerous.

If you disagree that a
majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find
whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations
have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts.

The highest approval rating I could find was 73%. This was before it
was revealed that the presence of weapons of mass destruction was a BIG,
FAT LIE. Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend
serving in the military. This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a
matter of personal interest than political support.

(snip)

(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

Plenty of reasons.

Like?

(snip)

This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
full display.

If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as
a matter of their personal choice?

I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a
duck is blasted out of the sky.

(snip)

In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.

Animals are neither tortured

Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or
burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily
granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the
study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and
Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because
no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus.

or murdered.

specific legal definition.

Bullshit! People can use language in whatever way they want to
highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word. Lucily, it's not
within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese.

Kittens suffocated to study cot death are murdered, senselessly, cruelly
murdered.

I know you don't care about specific
definitions in your rush to condemn others,

Language is a living thing. You have to accept this.

but you're not sincere

Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that
people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All
this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe.

you
are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
processes among their own species

Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes.
What's your point?

The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows
them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them
are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're
more socialized than humans.

much less in ours. Your point is
laughably non sequitur and irrelevant.

I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority
who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did
anything to acquire the knowledge, etc.

I know. As I just wrote, you are an ideologue. You don't care about the
truth, especially since it is at odds with your agenda.

Master, isn't it the Truth that all creatures on this earth are our
relatives? That we are inextricably connected to all Life? Dosen't the
superiority of Man rest with our ability to choose kindness?

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized
minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists.

Terrorists kill non-combatant people without prior warning. AR
activists are liberators and vandals.

Review the
list of articles in my previous replies to you.

If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists?

(snip)

"frlpwr" wrote
Dutch wrote:

"exploratory" wrote

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight,
work,
suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights
soldiers.

It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving
self..

Wrong. It matters to me, too.

Suffering and dying my ass... soldiers my ass...

What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really
died!

This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of
themselves.

There are worthy causes on behalf of animals, but's it's revolting to
see people so deluded, so blinded by the glare of their
self-glorification.

frlcnt wrote:
You forget that we had over forty nations
supporting us in the build up to war.

You mean like these:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html

Yep, Latvia has our back.

Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the
nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant

You elitist snob.

and even they
were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war. Those reasons
are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David
Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media
overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed.

Here, read it yourself you old cow:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml

Please note the following:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities
and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from
the United Nations.

The very scale of this programme when coupled with the
conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of
Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move
to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

Etc.

The Iraqi people are much better off than they were. Once again you're
on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central America, and
you're choosing it again. Shame on you.

More are now coming on board. Even
our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the
French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing.

Are you sure that's a done deal?

Others coming onboard? Yes.

I was addressing the United States population.

The US population was bamboozled right along with Ethiopia. Right-wing
zealots, like you, believe anything the State Department tells them.

Your opinions are way off base. Conservatives are generally wary of what
transpires at Foggy Bottom. Please count me in the wary group, so long
as the career officers run the show.

You're dangerous.

Thanks, I'm glad my presence and my opinions bother you.

If you disagree that a
majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find
whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations
have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts.

The highest approval rating I could find was 73%.

Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration.

This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of
mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE.

Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already
uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN
resolutions. Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be
corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then?

Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend
serving in the military.

Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines.

This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a
matter of personal interest than political support.

Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or
reserves if they'd support these actions and see. The kind of people you
find in military families are the kind you don't like; they tend to
believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their
President regardless of party. I think you're really reaching in trying
to minimize the level, and depth, of support.

What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed
the war?

(snip)

(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

Plenty of reasons.

Like?

Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most
unconscionable manner. His repression served only himself, his family,
and his cronies; the rest of Iraq languished. Like our other wars, we
will leave the nation better off than we found it. Power is restored,
schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure
and hospitals.

Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran.
Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan. With Saddam out of play, the
Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD
programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along). The fact
that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to
withdraw our troops from that nation.

Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists
safe passage in and through his borders. We attacked one al-Qaeda camp
in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions. Saddam had Abu Abbas
killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've
forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship
Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi)
received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in
Afghanistan.

(snip)

This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
full display.

If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as
a matter of their personal choice?

Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus
protected from such actions.

I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a
duck is blasted out of the sky.

Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected. Whitetails are more likely to
bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from
arrows or bullets. Do you also seek to ban driving?

(snip)
In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.

Animals are neither tortured

Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or
burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily
granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the
study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and
Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because
no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus.

No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important
research.

or murdered.
specific legal definition.

Bullshit!

No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact
rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still
hyperbole.

People can use language in whatever way they want to
highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word.

I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point
out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with
your feelings, I'll lead with intellect.

Lucily, it's not
within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese.

Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just
know that it isn't intellectually stimulating. You'll only preach to
your choir.

Kittens suffocated to study cot death are murdered, senselessly, cruelly
murdered.

Only according to your emotive use of the word, which really means "the
unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated
malice." To parse what you said, kittens are not human and do not fit
the definition; and in such circumstances as you allude, they aren't
killed with malice, but rather with the intent to expand knowledge. Go
ahead and emote, you're still wrong.

I know you don't care about specific
definitions in your rush to condemn others,

Language is a living thing. You have to accept this.

Oh, but I do. Words DO have meanings, though, and it's something you
also must accept.

but you're not sincere

Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that
people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All
this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe.

You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for
others and other species. You are misanthropic, and you only use
"compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind.

you
are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
processes among their own species

Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes.
What's your point?

Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have
rights -- ontologically, naturally, or legally.

The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows
them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them
are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're
more socialized than humans.

Anthropomorphism and misanthropy.

...
ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized
minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists.

Terrorists kill non-combatant people without prior warning.

Killing isn't the aim of terrorists. It's not easy to scare those whom
you kill. Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault,
it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation
rather than reason.

AR activists are liberators and vandals.

No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of
violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts
mainly because you have neither. Your views are radical and have no
popular appeal, which is why public sentiments are growing against your
radical movement.

Does liberation include setting loose animals which will kill livestock
and other members of its own species who aren't littermates? That's
insane, Mary. You're only a lawless and antisocial charlatan. Your
principles shallow and your contempt for mankind is deep.

Review the
list of articles in my previous replies to you.

If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists?

You'll find text of your nasty little communique about Huntingdon, as
well as news accounts about ALF/ELF terror activities.

Dutch wrote:

"frlpwr" wrote
Dutch wrote:

"exploratory" wrote

What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight,
work, suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights
soldiers.

It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving
self..

Wrong. It matters to me, too.

Suffering

There are jailed animal rights activists. There are animal rights
activists forced to live underground. Both of these states lead to
suffering.

and dying my ass...

Barry Horne died in prison.

soldiers my ass...

I prefer the term 'guerillas'.

What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really
died!

And who really suffered and really died for really ignoble causes like
freeing up Iraqi oil, raiding coca plantations or squelching peasant
movements. Really!

This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of
themselves.

Hogwash. Successful ARAs live and work in anonymity.

There are worthy causes on behalf of animals, but's it's revolting to
see people so deluded, so blinded by the glare of their
self-glorification.

It's not that ARAs are so good, it's that you anti-animal creeps are so
bad.

frlcnt wrote:
What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight,
work, suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights
soldiers.

It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving
self..

Wrong. It matters to me, too.

Suffering

There are jailed animal rights activists. There are animal rights
activists forced to live underground. Both of these states lead to
suffering.

Their actions lead to suffering. Stop doing wrong, work for what's
right, and suffering will diminish for all sides.

and dying my ass...

Barry Horne died in prison.

Someone who purposely starves himself to death is unworthy of sympathy,
much less the honors due a martyr.

soldiers my ass...

I prefer the term 'guerillas'.

More of your radical conformity. They're nothing but antisocial zealots
whose radical ideals are so out of step with the mainstream that they
seek to impose their will through violence and destruction rather than
engage others in the arena of ideas.

What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really
died!

And who really suffered and really died for really ignoble causes like
freeing up Iraqi oil, raiding coca plantations or squelching peasant
movements. Really!

It was about more than oil, skank. You left out standing up to the
oppressive Sandanistas in your list.

This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of
themselves.

Hogwash. Successful ARAs live and work in anonymity.

So much for being brave. They're cowards, espousing their views in the
still of the night rather than in the cleansing light of the sun. I must
agree with Dutch: your over-glamorized view of yourself is clear when
you choose to call yourself a guerilla.

snip

usual suspect wrote:

frlcnt wrote:

What's the matter with you? Why are you calling me a "****"?

You forget that we had over forty nations
supporting us in the build up to war.

You mean like these:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html

Yep, Latvia has our back.

Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the
nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant

You elitist snob.

No, my comment above does not reflect on the intrinsic worth of the
people of these nations, only on the value of these nations as wartime
allies.

and even they
were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Saddam isn't nice.

Those reasons
are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David
Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media
overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed.

Here, read it yourself you old cow:

I don't consider myself "old" and I have no physical features that could
be seen as cow-like.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml

Please note the following:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities

BFD. Does the US have WMD-related programme activities? Where do we
get off deciding who can possess such programs and who cannot?

and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from
the United Nations.

The US won't even pay UN dues, do you think we would allow UN delegates
to search our military bases?

The very scale of this programme when coupled with the
conditions in Iraq

Conditions created by US bombing and occupation.

that have prevailed since the end of
Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move
to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

Etc.

The Iraqi people are much better off than they were.

So are the US businesses holding the contracts for the re-building of
Iraq.

Once again you're on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central
America,

Like supporting the FSLN in its war of liberation against US-backed
Somoza?

and you're choosing it again. Shame on you.

Shame on you for suggesting that the US gives one flying **** about the
welfare of Iraqi people.

The highest approval rating I could find was 73%.

Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration.

This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of
mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE.

Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already
uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN
resolutions.

Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. When will the US bombs start
to fall?

Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be
corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then?

Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend
serving in the military.

Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines.

It's the tainting of the approval rate by this fact that's interesting,
stupid.

This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a
matter of personal interest than political support.

Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or
reserves if they'd support these actions and see.

Can't you read? These _are_ the 29%.

The kind of people you find in military families are the kind you don't like; they
tend to believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their
President regardless of party.

I don't think blind allegiance to duty, family, country or president is
a noble stand.

I think you're really reaching in trying
to minimize the level, and depth, of support.

73% - 29% = 44% When adjusted for personal interest bias, the poll with
the most favorable (to the administration) approval rate shows the
majority of Americans did not support initiating a war against Iraq.

What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed
the war?

You're the president's cheerleader, you tell me.

(snip)

(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

Plenty of reasons.

Like?

Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most
unconscionable manner.

This can be said about a number of current rulers.

His repression served only himself, his family,
and his cronies;

This can be said about many current rulers.

the rest of Iraq languished.

Do you think this could have anything to do with a decade long oil
blockade?

Like our other wars, we
will leave the nation better off than we found it.

How do you plan on restoring the antiquities lost?

Power is restored,
schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure
and hospitals.

That's nice. First we destroy the infrastructure, then we're pay
ourselves to rebuild it with the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil.

Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran.
Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan.

That's funny, I only see only two of Iraq's neighbors, Kuwait and
Turkey, on the list of nations supporting the war.

With Saddam out of play, the
Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD
programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along).

If they don't move fast enough or far enough for our liking, would you
support a war against Iran?

The fact that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to
withdraw our troops from that nation.

Thanks ever so much.

Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists
safe passage in and through his borders.

There is no confirmed link between Iraq and state sponsored terrorist
acts against Americans.

We attacked one al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions.

Proof? You'll have to do better than an aerial shot of an
indistinguishable training camp.

Saddam had Abu Abbas
killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've
forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship
Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi)
received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in
Afghanistan.

Is the presence of one or two known criminals sufficient cause to
declare war on an entire nation of people?

(snip)

This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
full display.

If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as
a matter of their personal choice?

Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus
protected from such actions.

It is not irrelevant for the purpose of revealing if you do, indeed,
consider killing animals, not the property of anyone, a matter of
personal choice.

I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a
duck is blasted out of the sky.

Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected.

It was your misuse of the word. That's why I was careful to use
quotation marks.

Whitetails are more likely to
bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from
arrows or bullets.

Irrelevant. Normally, when a car hits an animal, it's an accident.
Isn't this true in Texas?

Do you also seek to ban driving?

No, but I think lower speed limits should be enforced at dawn and dusk
to accommodate deer and other wildlife on the move. I think in areas of
high deer concentrations fences should be installed, funneling deer to
well-posted crossing areas and all drivers should be on notice that deer
are likely to be present.

(snip)
In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
majority.

Animals are neither tortured

Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or
burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily
granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the
study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and
Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because
no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus.

No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important
research.

Nonetheless, it is the intentional infliction of unrelieved pain.
That's torture, no matter what goal is achieved. Japanese soldiers
sought valid and important research on naval movements when they crammed
bamboo sticks under the fingernails of Allied prisoners of war. Does
that mean what they did was not torture?

or murdered.
specific legal definition.

Bullshit!

No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact
rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still
hyperbole.

People can use language in whatever way they want to
highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word.

I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point
out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with
your feelings, I'll lead with intellect.

That means you pretty much will suck as a lover, friend, son, brother,
husband and father. Congratulations.

Lucily, it's not
within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese.

Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just
know that it isn't intellectually stimulating.

Unlike the official press release from the CIA chief, you mean?

You'll only preach to
your choir.

Ditto.

(snip)

Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that
people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All
this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe.

You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for
others and other species.

Describe a demonstration of sincere and genuine concern for others and
other species.

You are misanthropic, and you only use
"compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind.

I neither hate nor love humans as a group. My feelings about humans are
constructed on a case by case basis.

you
are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
processes among their own species

Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes.
What's your point?

Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have
rights -- ontologically,

Existence bestows basic rights, though offers no protection for those
rights.

naturally,

Do humans?

legally.

Laws change. A hundred years ago, women, workers and children had few
rights.

(snip)

The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows
them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them
are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're
more socialized than humans.

Anthropomorphism

Not at all, years of observation of the social behavior of feral cats.
Read Leyhausen if you need a biologist's confirmation.

and misanthropy.

Why? Because I say that cat society is more strictly organized than
human society? You're overly sensitive.

Killing isn't the aim of terrorists.

I didn't say it was, did I? Killing is a tool.

It's not easy to scare those whom
you kill.

Ummm, you sure got me there.

Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault,
it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation
rather than reason.

I'll go along with that and add that it is the last resort of those
without a legitimate channel to satisfy their socio/politico/economic
needs.

AR activists are liberators and vandals.

No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of
violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts
mainly because you have