****wit, formerly known as "David Harrison", seems to
have new enthusiasm for trying to make his lousy trick
work. Here's the essence of it.

1. "vegans" are upset that animals are killed for
human consumption (we'll ignore the MASSIVE "vegan"
hypocrisy in that for a moment, as it has been
adequately addressed elsewhere by numerous others.)

2. "vegans" don't eat meat, in order not to contribute
to this form of animal death: animals deliberately
killed by humans in order to consume the animal
products. Their goal is to cause fewer animals to
be bred and raised and slaughtered than would be
the case if these people consumed animal products.

3. ****wit thinks, as his writing over a four and a
half year period shows, that wanting to eliminate
farm animals is a morally bad thing. He wants to
persuade "vegans" that they should stop being
"vegans".

4. ****wit knows that his stupid "getting to
experience life" argument is full of holes, so he
does a little switcheroo, thinking no one will
notice: he cynically suggests that people can have
an impact on the lives of animals that DO exist, by
being so-called "ethical" or "conscientious"
consumers. There are three big problems with this:

a. ****wit himself doesn't practice what he
preaches. He buys meat without regard to the
quality of lives of the animals raised to
produce it. He is a massive hypocrite.

b. He can't address "vegans'" beliefs about the
deliberate killing of farm animals. They feel
it's wrong, and ****wit can't offer anything to
try to persuade them it isn't; he simply offers
his own biased belief that it isn't.

c. Everyone can see through the stupid ****ing
trick! No one is fooled into thinking that
****wit is trying to improve the quality of
life of farm animals who DO live; he quite
obviously is trying to trick the "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.


****wit has not learned a thing, not a goddamned thing,
in over four years. He's a moron.

Ray Slather

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:20:32 GMT, Shitbag Slater wrote:

****wit, formerly known as "David Harrison", seems to
have new enthusiasm for trying to make his lousy trick
work. Here's the essence of it.

1. "vegans" are upset that animals are killed for
human consumption (we'll ignore the MASSIVE "vegan"
hypocrisy in that for a moment, as it has been
adequately addressed elsewhere by numerous others.)

2. "vegans" don't eat meat, in order not to contribute
to this form of animal death: animals deliberately
killed by humans in order to consume the animal
products. Their goal is to cause fewer animals to
be bred and raised and slaughtered than would be
the case if these people consumed animal products.

3. ****wit thinks, as his writing over a four and a
half year period shows, that wanting to eliminate
farm animals is a morally bad thing. He wants to
persuade "vegans" that they should stop being
"vegans".

4. ****wit knows that his stupid "getting to
experience life" argument is full of holes, so he
does a little switcheroo, thinking no one will
notice: he cynically suggests that people can have
an impact on the lives of animals that DO exist, by
being so-called "ethical" or "conscientious"
consumers. There are three big problems with this:

a. ****wit himself doesn't practice what he
preaches. He buys meat without regard to the
quality of lives of the animals raised to
produce it. He is a massive hypocrite.

b. He can't address "vegans'" beliefs about the
deliberate killing of farm animals. They feel
it's wrong, and ****wit can't offer anything to
try to persuade them it isn't; he simply offers
his own biased belief that it isn't.

c. Everyone can see through the stupid ****ing
trick! No one is fooled into thinking that
****wit is trying to improve the quality of
life of farm animals who DO live; he quite
obviously is trying to trick the "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.


****wit has not learned a thing, not a goddamned thing,
in over four years. He's a moron.

Ray Slather

Sniff......sniff sniff....sniff sniff sniff sniff....GAG.
Peeeeeeewwwwwwwwww!!!!! Someone sure does
smell like a Gonad around here. If that's you Ray,
which doesn't seem all that likely, you'd better get
cleaned up a bit before you infect someone's
resperatory system. But if that's really you Gonad,
anyone who's been around you is contaminated
already. And you've got the kind of stench that
goes to the bone. There's no hope of cleaning
your nasty ass up.

If anyone else is reading this, the Gonad who
wrote it is in great opposition to me pointing out
that some types of meat involve less deaths than
some types of veggies. And that people can
contribute to decent lives for farm animals with
their diet, but they can't do it by being veg*n.
That is what he's mainly opposed to....he doesn't
want anyone to consider an alternative to veg*nism
that would promote decent lives for farm animals,
because "ARAs" like himself want to see domestic
animals eliminated, NOT provided with decent lives.
There is a huge difference in Animal Welfare and
the gross mi$nomer "Animal Rights", and people
like the Gonad don't want other people to swing
the AW direction because it would be moving in
a direction that would oppose what "ARAs" hope
to accomplish.
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive
care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed.

However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals
for human purposes, such as food and fiber, and for research conducted
to benefit both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org./care4pets/morewelf.htm#rights
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
Thus, whereas welfarists seek to
*reform* current practices of animal exploitation, while retaining such
exploitation in principle, rights advocates oppose all such
exploitation in principle and seek to *abolish* all such exploitation in
practice.
[...]
Many animal rights people who
disavow the philosophy of animal welfare believe they can
consistently support reformist means to abolition ends. This view is
mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
[...]
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and
Gary Francione
The Animal's Agenda (pp.40-43)
January/February 1992
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:22:55 -0700

wrote:

...they aren't simply "killed". Some of those animals
have decent lives, and others don't. Those are facts which veg*ns/"ARAs",
and at least some of their supposed opponents, want to disregard when making
their ethical evaluation of our relationship with animals.

No, ****wit. It is a "fact" that has no moral
importance, and need be given no consideration in
making a moral judgment about humans' relationship with
and use of animals.
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
__________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"They follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:20:32 GMT, Shitbag Slater wrote:


****wit, formerly known as "David Harrison", seems to
have new enthusiasm for trying to make his lousy trick
work. Here's the essence of it.

1. "vegans" are upset that animals are killed for
human consumption (we'll ignore the MASSIVE "vegan"
hypocrisy in that for a moment, as it has been
adequately addressed elsewhere by numerous others.)

2. "vegans" don't eat meat, in order not to contribute
to this form of animal death: animals deliberately
killed by humans in order to consume the animal
products. Their goal is to cause fewer animals to
be bred and raised and slaughtered than would be
the case if these people consumed animal products.

3. ****wit thinks, as his writing over a four and a
half year period shows, that wanting to eliminate
farm animals is a morally bad thing. He wants to
persuade "vegans" that they should stop being "vegans".

4. ****wit knows that his stupid "getting to
experience life" argument is full of holes, so he
does a little switcheroo, thinking no one will
notice: he cynically suggests that people can have
an impact on the lives of animals that DO exist, by
being so-called "ethical" or "conscientious"
consumers. There are three big problems with this:

a. ****wit himself doesn't practice what he
preaches. He buys meat without regard to the
quality of lives of the animals raised to
produce it. He is a massive hypocrite.

b. He can't address "vegans'" beliefs about the
deliberate killing of farm animals. They feel
it's wrong, and ****wit can't offer anything to
try to persuade them it isn't; he simply offers
his own biased belief that it isn't.

c. Everyone can see through the stupid ****ing
trick! No one is fooled into thinking that
****wit is trying to improve the quality of
life of farm animals who DO live; he quite
obviously is trying to trick the "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.


****wit has not learned a thing, not a goddamned thing,
in over four years. He's a moron.

Ray Slather



wrote it is in great opposition to me pointing out
that some types of meat involve less deaths than
some types of veggies.

No. I'm in great opposition to your hypocrisy, among
other things. Mostly, I'm in great and *effective*
opposition to you stupid, ****witted attempt at a trick.

And that people can
contribute to decent lives for farm animals with
their diet, but they can't do it by being veg*n.

There's the stupid trick again. It will never work.

What you REALLY want is to try to persuade "vegans"
that they ought to eat meat, in order to cause more
farm animals to live. Your stupid, ****witted, failed
trick involves this clumsy shell game of trying to slip
in the crap about "decent lives", something you do not
promote yourself.


Ray Slather

"Shitbag Slater" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:20:32 GMT, Shitbag Slater
wrote:


****wit, formerly known as "David Harrison", seems to
have new enthusiasm for trying to make his lousy trick
work. Here's the essence of it.

1. "vegans" are upset that animals are killed for
human consumption (we'll ignore the MASSIVE "vegan"
hypocrisy in that for a moment, as it has been
adequately addressed elsewhere by numerous others.)

2. "vegans" don't eat meat, in order not to contribute
to this form of animal death: animals deliberately
killed by humans in order to consume the animal
products. Their goal is to cause fewer animals to
be bred and raised and slaughtered than would be
the case if these people consumed animal products.

3. ****wit thinks, as his writing over a four and a
half year period shows, that wanting to eliminate
farm animals is a morally bad thing. He wants to
persuade "vegans" that they should stop being "vegans".

4. ****wit knows that his stupid "getting to
experience life" argument is full of holes, so he
does a little switcheroo, thinking no one will
notice: he cynically suggests that people can have
an impact on the lives of animals that DO exist, by
being so-called "ethical" or "conscientious"
consumers. There are three big problems with this:

a. ****wit himself doesn't practice what he
preaches. He buys meat without regard to the
quality of lives of the animals raised to
produce it. He is a massive hypocrite.

b. He can't address "vegans'" beliefs about the
deliberate killing of farm animals. They feel
it's wrong, and ****wit can't offer anything to
try to persuade them it isn't; he simply offers
his own biased belief that it isn't.

c. Everyone can see through the stupid ****ing
trick! No one is fooled into thinking that
****wit is trying to improve the quality of
life of farm animals who DO live; he quite
obviously is trying to trick the "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.


****wit has not learned a thing, not a goddamned thing,
in over four years. He's a moron.

Ray Slather



wrote it is in great opposition to me pointing out
that some types of meat involve less deaths than
some types of veggies.

No. I'm in great opposition to your hypocrisy, among
other things. Mostly, I'm in great and *effective*
opposition to you stupid, ****witted attempt at a trick.

And that people can
contribute to decent lives for farm animals with
their diet, but they can't do it by being veg*n.

There's the stupid trick again. It will never work.

What you REALLY want is to try to persuade "vegans"
that they ought to eat meat, in order to cause more
farm animals to live. Your stupid, ****witted, failed
trick involves this clumsy shell game of trying to slip
in the crap about "decent lives", something you do not
promote yourself.


Ray Slather


Will the "real" Jonathan Ball stand up.

Oh, sorry ~~jonnie~~ You are stood up:-)

Ray wrote:

"Shitbag Slater" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote:


On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:20:32 GMT, Shitbag Slater

wrote:


****wit, formerly known as "David Harrison", seems to
have new enthusiasm for trying to make his lousy trick
work. Here's the essence of it.

1. "vegans" are upset that animals are killed for
human consumption (we'll ignore the MASSIVE "vegan"
hypocrisy in that for a moment, as it has been
adequately addressed elsewhere by numerous others.)

2. "vegans" don't eat meat, in order not to contribute
to this form of animal death: animals deliberately
killed by humans in order to consume the animal
products. Their goal is to cause fewer animals to
be bred and raised and slaughtered than would be
the case if these people consumed animal products.

3. ****wit thinks, as his writing over a four and a
half year period shows, that wanting to eliminate
farm animals is a morally bad thing. He wants to
persuade "vegans" that they should stop being "vegans".

4. ****wit knows that his stupid "getting to
experience life" argument is full of holes, so he
does a little switcheroo, thinking no one will
notice: he cynically suggests that people can have
an impact on the lives of animals that DO exist, by
being so-called "ethical" or "conscientious"
consumers. There are three big problems with this:

a. ****wit himself doesn't practice what he
preaches. He buys meat without regard to the
quality of lives of the animals raised to
produce it. He is a massive hypocrite.

b. He can't address "vegans'" beliefs about the
deliberate killing of farm animals. They feel
it's wrong, and ****wit can't offer anything to
try to persuade them it isn't; he simply offers
his own biased belief that it isn't.

c. Everyone can see through the stupid ****ing
trick! No one is fooled into thinking that
****wit is trying to improve the quality of
life of farm animals who DO live; he quite
obviously is trying to trick the "vegans" into
supporting life per se for farm animals.


****wit has not learned a thing, not a goddamned thing,
in over four years. He's a moron.

Ray Slather


wrote it is in great opposition to me pointing out
that some types of meat involve less deaths than
some types of veggies.

No. I'm in great opposition to your hypocrisy, among
other things. Mostly, I'm in great and *effective*
opposition to you stupid, ****witted attempt at a trick.


And that people can
contribute to decent lives for farm animals with
their diet, but they can't do it by being veg*n.

There's the stupid trick again. It will never work.

What you REALLY want is to try to persuade "vegans"
that they ought to eat meat, in order to cause more
farm animals to live. Your stupid, ****witted, failed
trick involves this clumsy shell game of trying to slip
in the crap about "decent lives", something you do not
promote yourself.


Ray Slather



Will the "real" Jonathan Ball stand up.

Oh, sorry ~~jonnie~~ You are stood up:-)

Here you go:

A "****wit" is a person who has consistently failed
to obtain any degree of 'clue'.

This will often be in a technical sense, such as
'top posting' to usenet, quoting the entire text of
a usenet post or email in your reply and adding a
few words in response, or continually being a
complete dickhead.

http://www.****wit.info/whatis.htm

You STUPID, completely dickheaded ****WIT.