"exploratory" wrote in message
om...
usual suspect wrote in message news:qITjb.36161

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

Yes it is.
=============
I suggest you go back to whatever school you go/went to and demand a refund.
You have absolutly no clue as to what censorship is, killer.





snippage of typical loony idiocy...

"usual suspect" wrote in message
.. .
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.
====================
At least now we know he comes by his stupidity naturally....




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?

usual suspect wrote:

frlpwr wrote:

(snip)

Their actions lead to suffering.

Their actions are prompted by animal suffering with human origins.

Stop doing wrong, work for what's
right

Practicing for your Sunday church group?

Just curious, what work do you do that's "right". That would be none.
You're too busy trying to improve yourself physically. You should spend
a little more time on your moral development.

and suffering will diminish for all sides.

Wow. Who would have guessed the solution to human suffering was waiting
right here on aaev?

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.

ARAs are damned if they act against others and damned if they act
against themselves. I guess they should just stick their collective
thumbs up their asses and wait for the animal exploiters to decide
they're tired of using animals for personal gain.

soldiers my ass...

I prefer the term 'guerillas'.

More of your radical conformity.

Huh? I thought you were a stickler for precision in language? A
guerilla is someone who "engages in irregular warfare as an individual
or member of an independent unit, using tactics such as harrassment and
sabotage". Fits direct action activists to a T.

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.

Ho-hum, you're repeating yourself.

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.

Yeah, it was about Americans' heartfelt concern for the oppressed of the
world. What's your plan for the Palestinians?

You left out standing up to the
oppressive Sandanistas in your list.

You mean by forming and supporting Contra death squads?

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.

You mean like forming and supporting Contra death squads?

I must agree with Dutch: your over-glamorized view of yourself is clear when
you choose to call yourself a guerilla.

You're lying. I never called myself a guerilla. I said that ARAs
engaging in direct actions were more aptly termed guerillas than
"soldiers" and I'm correct.

snip

"frlpwr" wrote in message ...
usual suspect wrote:

frlpwr wrote:

(snip)

Their actions lead to suffering.

Their actions are prompted by animal suffering with human origins.

Stop doing wrong, work for what's
right

Practicing for your Sunday church group?

Just curious, what work do you do that's "right". That would be none.
You're too busy trying to improve yourself physically. You should spend
a little more time on your moral development.

and suffering will diminish for all sides.

Wow. Who would have guessed the solution to human suffering was waiting
right here on aaev?

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.

ARAs are damned if they act against others and damned if they act
against themselves. I guess they should just stick their collective
thumbs up their asses and wait for the animal exploiters to decide
they're tired of using animals for personal gain.
==================
ummm, that's you deary... All that exploitin' going on. Gotta do
something about it, eh killer?



soldiers my ass...

I prefer the term 'guerillas'.

More of your radical conformity.

Huh? I thought you were a stickler for precision in language? A
guerilla is someone who "engages in irregular warfare as an individual
or member of an independent unit, using tactics such as harrassment and
sabotage". Fits direct action activists to a T.
================
'T' as in terrorist? You got that right....




snippage of rest of typical spew.....

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:

No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp

I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?

Nope, just wanted to know.

Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some
people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's
any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't
expect anything much from you.

You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:37 GMT, Cash Cow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty wrote:


On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


brad beattie wrote:

----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.

This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.

[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.

Okay so far...

7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.

Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit.

SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
these vegetables and fruits.

Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies Gonad, even though we can see how MUCH you don't want
people to understand that fact. You show how desperate you are to
promote "AR"/veg*nism every time you pretend to be someone else
agreeing with yourself. How can anyone not see you as the very obvious
lame, stupid, dishonest "ARA" that you are?

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:

[...]
You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: contemplative affections
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT

Snuffles wrote:

"firstoftwins" wrote in message
...

What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
usage too?


Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
rats!
Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.

If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:

No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp

I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and
humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?

Nope, just wanted to know.

Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some
people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's
any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't
expect anything much from you.

You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance
of this fact.

I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you
some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides
finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were
in such a situation. There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
morons, or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of
a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it?

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:



You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.


Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day,

No animals "benefit" from farming.

and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

You believe that animals "benefit" merely from "getting
to experience life". That makes you stupid by definition.

wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:

[...]

You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: contemplative affections
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT

Snuffles wrote:


"firstoftwins" wrote in message
...


What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
usage too?



Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
rats!
Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.


If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.

Not a "benefit" from life itself, cocksucker. A
"benefit" compared to some other possible life.

Life per se is not a benefit.

wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:37 GMT, Cash Cow wrote:




Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.

Okay so far...


7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.

Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit.

SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
these vegetables and fruits.


Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies

You don't buy any of them, ****wit, you ****ing
cocksucker. You're the worst sort of hypocrite.

You do not "promote decent lives" for farm animals,
cocksucker. You want to try to trick "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.

Your trick failed. It will always fail.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:

No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp

I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and
humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?

Nope, just wanted to know.

Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some
people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's
any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't
expect anything much from you.

You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance
of this fact.

I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you
some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides
finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were
in such a situation.

I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far don't
believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean
that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
ten thousand years has benefited from farming. That idea seems
absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case,
and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do*
benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the
absurd idea that not one of them has. Then there's the fact that I
see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me. No
one has provided reasons I agree with for feeling that the animals
don't benefit--and by this time I doubt they will--and every minute
of every day I have reason to believe that they do. It doesn't
matter how many of you say I'm wrong if you can't do any better
than you have done. Simply insisting that the animals lives can not
be figured into the equation doesn't mean anything to me.

There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
morons,

You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do
feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good
thinkers. Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way. I'm in
the position of being able to know without doubt when he's lying
about what I believe, but "everyone else here" is limited by not
being in that position. Even so, a person who enters the discussion
should want to know what my beliefs really are instead of just
taking the Gonad's word for it, should be able to see very clearly
that he is a liar, and above all should wonder why in the hell he
makes such a big issue about *my* personal beliefs in the first
place! From there, we could wonder why doesn't he care what
my beliefs actually are? What would happen if he posted his
FAQ with what I actually *do* believe, instead of the bullshit
that he so obviously *wants* people to think I believe?

or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of
a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it?

Plenty of people understand it. When the issue of "AR" or
veg*nism comes up in conversations with other people, and I
point out that some animals benefit from farming and some
don't, people *always* agree that some do. They usually say
they hadn't thought about it that way before, but they agree
after I point it out. That means that *most* of the people I
discuss it with agree with my pov. It also means that *only!*
the people in these ngs disagree. The people in these ngs
also seem to believe the Gonad's lies. I doubt seriously that
the Gonad is really stupid enough to believe his own lies, and
I'm amazed that so many people in these ngs appear to believe
them.

And the question still remains as it has for years Dutch:
*Why* does the Gonad lie? Why does the Gonad feel it's so
important, that his lies are actually "needed"? What horrible
thing might happen if he didn't???
__________________________________________________ _______
Searched Groups for insubject:****wit's insubject:beliefs author:jonathan author:ball.
Results 1 - 8 of about 110. Search took 5.01 seconds.

FAQ - ****wit's beliefs (posted on an as-needed basis)
.... that he does. The record, in ****wit's own words, speaks for itself. No one has "lied" about ****wit's
beliefs. ****wit believes everything I have said he believes, as supported by ****wit's own ranting.
misc.rural - Mar 16, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (17 articles)

****wit's beliefs (posted as needed)
.... Keep it up! The ****wit is a cancer and you are the radiation ;) Well, thanks.
I should have looked for those quotes a year ago. Most of them are that old or
older. And they all point unerringly to the same thing: ****wit's beliefs.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Apr 10, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (119 articles)

****wit's beliefs (posted as needed); Dreck
****wit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison", has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. Yes, you have. ... I haven't lied about his beliefs, Dreck. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sep 26, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (1 article)

more on ****wit's beliefs
.... is "happy" to contribute to it. Of course, whenever I suggest to ****wit that his ****witted beliefs are
based in his religious belief, he denies it. We see that he is lying. Related to it is this: But ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 9, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (9 articles)

****wit's beliefs about animal "benefits"
.... ----- ****wit defined six "benefits". He
calls all of these benefits of "life" for animals, including the last one, "life"
itself. Thus, in ****wit's belief system, "life" is its own benefit. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 2, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (6 articles)

****wit's beliefs: an addendum to the FAQ
****wit just provided a tasty new quote today, one that shows just what a stupid, semi-literate ****wit he
is. Here's the quote: In order for anything to be better for something, the something must first exist. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 11, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (2 articles)

special for Dreck: one of ****wit's beliefs
Back to one of the points you made earlier, in which you say that the animals have to
show some awareness of their "benefit", and I told you that ****wit says it isn't necessary:
Previously, ****wit implied that it *is* necessary for them to know ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Nov 10, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (3 articles)

FAQ: ****wit's (David Harrison's) beliefs (posted on an as- ...
I certainly didn't expect it to have to be daily, but ****wit showed that it may need to be. ----
All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is ****wit's own. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 3, 2002 by Jonathan Ball -
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:



You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance
of this fact.

I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you
some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides
finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were
in such a situation.


I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far don't
believe there's any chance that I am.

You are a liar. You have not honestly considered the
possibility of being wrong at all, and it's obvious to
everyone who reads your crap.

Having everyone else in the newsgroups tell you you're
wrong, especially those nominally on the same side of
the meat/no-meat divide as you, *ought* to tell you
something. Because you are delusional, especially
about your intellect, you don't get the message.

Having everyone tell you you're wrong doesn't mean you
*are* wrong, but it's the safe bet, and in this issue,
you are wrong. The error in your thinking has been
elaborated on hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
You have not even ATTEMPTED to refute the error.

If I'm wrong, it would mean
that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
ten thousand years has benefited from farming. That idea seems
absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case.

There STILL is no refutation in that, just empty
assertion. No animal raised for food has "benefited"
simply from existing and "getting to experience life",
for reasons that have been spelled out to you. The
animal didn't exist before being born, so life _per se_
cannot be a benefit, because an entity must exist to
realize a benefit.

That is a logical conclusion that you haven't tried to
refute.



There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
morons,


You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do
feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good
thinkers.

No lies, ****wit. I have repeated your statements
verbatim, and shown that they tie together to say what
I have said they say: that you believe "getting to
experience life" is a good thing in and of itself, and
that those who want to "deny life" to farm animals are
committing evil.

Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way.

You are the one who is limited, ****wit. You are
limited by your unwarranted belief in your intellect.
You are a stupid, uneducated person, and your story is
fatally flawed. You are saying exactly what I have
claimed you're saying, and you are too stupid to refute it.

I'm in the position of being able to know without doubt when he's
lying about what I believe,

I haven't lied. Everyone knows I haven't lied. That's
why they accept my interpretation of your writing.

but "everyone else here" is limited by not
being in that position. Even so, a person who enters the discussion
should want to know what my beliefs really are instead of just
taking the Gonad's word for it, should be able to see very clearly
that he is a liar, and above all should wonder why in the hell he
makes such a big issue about *my* personal beliefs in the first
place!

I don't make an issue of your personal beliefs in
isolation, ****wit. Everyone knows that, too.

What I make into an issue is your stupid, ****witted
beliefs about life being a "benefit" to animals, and
your obvious and undeniable conclusion that "vegans"
are doing something evil by wanting to "deny life" to
farm animals.

From there, we could wonder why doesn't he care what
my beliefs actually are?

I DO care, ****wit, and I have accurately restated your
beliefs. It's too bad for you that the restatement
makes them look absurd, but that's only possible
because they ARE absurd in the first place. I don't
create the absurdity in your beliefs, ****wit; I only
shine bright light on it.

What would happen if he posted his
FAQ with what I actually *do* believe, instead of the bullshit
that he so obviously *wants* people to think I believe?

The FAQ contains YOUR writing, ****wit. I offer some
insight about the writing, but your words are
faithfully reproduced. I have included sufficient
context, and I have dates attached to everything I
attribute to you; anyone who wants to know if you
really said it can easily find it in Google.



or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of
a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it?


Plenty of people understand it. When the issue of "AR" or
veg*nism comes up in conversations with other people, and I
point out that some animals benefit from farming and some
don't, people *always* agree that some do.

When you write:

Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
****wit - June 25, 2003

there is no room for the "some" in "some animals
benefit from farming and some don't", you stupid
asslick. You are saying that life is *necessarily* a
benefit to ALL farm animals.

This is how it works, ****wit: you say something
stupid, and I point out exactly why it's stupid. You
can't run from your words, and my interpretations are
correct.

They usually say
they hadn't thought about it that way before, but they agree
after I point it out. That means that *most* of the people I
discuss it with agree with my pov. It also means that *only!*
the people in these ngs disagree.

It means nothing of the kind, you cocksucking arrogant
shitbag. It means that the people you address this
with in person are either too stupid, or too polite, or
too full of dread that you won't shut the **** up, that
they don't disagree; they just nod stupidly while
desperately hoping you will SHUT YOUR ****ING MOUTH and
get back to talking about shitty beer.

The people in these ngs
also seem to believe the Gonad's lies.

I haven't lied. Everyone, including you, knows I
haven't lied. That's your big problem.



And the question still remains as it has for years Dutch:
*Why* does the Gonad lie?

That's an invalid complex question, ****wit, that
assumes an answer has been given to a prior question.
You can't ask why I lie if I haven't lied. I haven't
lied, ****wit, and you and everyone else know it.

Why does the Gonad feel it's so
important, that his lies are actually "needed"? What horrible
thing might happen if he didn't???
__________________________________________________ _______
Searched Groups for insubject:****wit's insubject:beliefs author:jonathan author:ball.
Results 1 - 8 of about 110. Search took 5.01 seconds.

FAQ - ****wit's beliefs (posted on an as-needed basis)
... that he does. The record, in ****wit's own words, speaks for itself. No one has "lied" about ****wit's
beliefs. ****wit believes everything I have said he believes, as supported by ****wit's own ranting.
misc.rural - Mar 16, 2002 by Jonathan Ball

And that's true: The record, in your own words, does
speak for itself. No one has lied about your beliefs.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[..]

I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you
some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all
sides
finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I
were
in such a situation.

I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far
don't
believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean
that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
ten thousand years has benefited from farming.

Is that all you require to prove your case? Does only *one* out of billions
over ten thousand years have to have had a good life for you to conclude
that meat production is a good thing? It seems like you're tilting the board
a lot.

That idea seems
absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case,
and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do*
benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the
absurd idea that not one of them has.

That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
industry do?

Then there's the fact that I
see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.

You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound? You are
actually doing the same thing that ARAs do when they present HORRID videos
of abuse, except in reverse. You're playing the phony propaganda game. You
also don't see them every day, don't lie.

No
one has provided reasons I agree with for feeling that the animals
don't benefit--

Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives, that's why, and saying
that some live is better than no life at all, which is what you are
implying, doesn't wash. Your argument actually makes things much worse for
proponents of animal use. It makes it look like we're prepared to use any
flimsy justification to support it.

and by this time I doubt they will--and every minute
of every day I have reason to believe that they do. It doesn't
matter how many of you say I'm wrong if you can't do any better
than you have done. Simply insisting that the animals lives can not
be figured into the equation doesn't mean anything to me.

They can be figured all right, but to say they benefit simply by being born,
and that each animal that's born has a positive moral implication for meat
consumers, is ridiculous reasoning.

There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
morons,

You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do
feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good
thinkers. Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way.

So everyone but you is out to lunch.. OK then.... I remember why I put you
in the killfile.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:02:35 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

When you write:

Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
****wit - June 25, 2003

there is no room for the "some" in "some animals
benefit from farming and some don't", you stupid
asslick. You are saying that life is *necessarily* a
benefit to ALL farm animals.

You are a moron Gonad. Life itself is the benefit
that makes all others possible. That doesn't mean
that the individual lives of every animal must be
a benefit. Some are and some are not. But you have
shown that you're too stupid to understand that life
itself, and the seperate individual lives that are
unique to every living thing, are not the same.