Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball"/"Bill" wrote in message .net...


People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people.

So why did you write, "According to my logic,
if you knowingly continue to buy chocolate -
we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't
believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

Show it, lard-ass.

You wrote it - you show it.

Show it, asswipe.

I have done.

No, asswipe. You took something I wrote and
deliberately omitted context.


The context is all in Google archives

Go get it, ****drip, and include it in your
dirty-minded post, so we can see that you intended to
deceive.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message .net...
Derek wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Derek wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Derek wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Derek wrote:
"Jonathan Ball"/"Bill" wrote in message .net...

People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people.

So why did you write, "According to my logic,
if you knowingly continue to buy chocolate -
we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't
believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

Show it, lard-ass.

You wrote it - you show it.

Show it, asswipe.

I have done.

No, asswipe. You took something I wrote and
deliberately omitted context.

The context is all in Google archives

Go get it

I have done.

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message .net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball"/"Bill" wrote in message .net...


People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people.

So why did you write, "According to my logic,
if you knowingly continue to buy chocolate -
we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't
believe they do."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-07-29

and then soon after;

"I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery."
Jonathan Ball 2003-08-06

Show it, lard-ass.

You wrote it - you show it.

Show it, asswipe.

I have done.

No, asswipe. You took something I wrote and
deliberately omitted context.

The context is all in Google archives

Go get it


I have done.

No, you didn't. You deliberately omitted the context,
shitworm.

Ray wrote:
Here we go again, two posters who do not give a toss about animal rights
issues trying to prove which one is the smartest.

Well, at least Jonnie doesn't

I advocate that people not raise and slaughter animals for food
and other products. I don't. I advocate that people not
kill "pests" in farming or around their homes. I don't.
I advocate that people accept a philosophical concept of the
moral status of animals which grants them certain basic rights,
certain basic consideration. I have, and I do. I live my life
according to my view of animal rights. Veganism, while indeed
symbolic on the part of one individual, is indeed a potent,
meaningful act to express in practical terms my philosophical
convictions. But I see that to really make AR anything other
than a limited symbolic gesture, society must change. It is
not enough for individuals to be vegan and accept AR -- look
at the injustice and misery and death among the animals
created by those who do not accept AR as an idea. While we have
livestock raising -- especially factory farms -- and commercial
agribusiness, and mass death in animal shelters, and starving
feral cats and dogs, and parrots bred in factory pet farms
which destroy their health and stunt their minds (parrots are
a particular concern of mine), and dogs and cats bred into
disease and crippling for the vanity of show breeders, and all
the other things we do to animals -- while those things exist,
flinging personal attacks back and forth is so pointless, so
meaningless.

ANIMALS ARE SUFFERING AND DYING OUT THERE! And it is basically
because the people who hurt them don't respect their rights.
I've done a lot of hands-on rescue in my time; I act positively
as well as avoiding animal products, so the claim I do "nothing"
is as much bullshit as any other part of the personal attacks
on me. But that is a minor annoyance.

So -- I'm going to go out and clean my birdfeeders and birdbath,
go sprinkle some corn for the wild rabbits along to arroyo, and
see if I can catch a glimpse of that coyote I've been hearing.
Next year, after they come out of hibernation, I'll be able to
start working with the local prairie-dog rescue to relocate them
out of potential construction areas, and contact the wildlife
rescue and the local shelter here about volunteering.

I'm home, I'm home, and not even Jonnie/Bill can destroy my joy.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



Ray wrote:

Here we go again, two posters who do not give a toss about animal rights
issues trying to prove which one is the smartest.


Well, at least Jonnie doesn't

I advocate that people not raise and slaughter animals for food
and other products.

Right: because that one is cheap and easy.

If you were abiding by *principle*, rather than trying
for self exaltation, you would advocate something more
general: that people not treat animals in ways that
reflect a lack of consideration of their intrinsic
worth. You want to *pretend* that you do that, but you
don't, because YOU engage in activities that indicate
you do not consider the intrinsic moral worth of animals.

I don't.

Right: It's cheap and easy, and you believe the
gesture makes you appear "more ethical".

I advocate that people not
kill "pests" in farming or around their homes.

But you knowingly buy produce from people who actively
do what you claim to consider to be bad.

I don't.

Right: It's cheap and easy, and you believe the
gesture makes you appear "more ethical".

I advocate that people accept a philosophical concept of the
moral status of animals which grants them certain basic rights,
certain basic consideration. I have, and I do.

You have not, and you don't. This is the crux of the
problem. You benefit, knowingly, from others'
violations of your supposed moral dicta.

If you *really* believed that human activity ought to
be conducted in ways that systematically embody the
respect for the inherent moral worth of animals that
you claim to believe they have, you would not consume
animal-CD-causing vegetables. You do; thus, we know
you don't believe what you claim to believe. No
mindreading necessary, Karen, just clear-eyed
observation of your behavior.

This observation leads us to conclude, correctly, that
you are a liar and a hypocrite.

You cannot coherently explain why you engage in one
symbolic, empty gesture but not its analogue. We know
why, of course: you are the classic lying hypocrite,
who seeks self exaltation on the cheap.

I live my life according to my view of animal rights.

You live your life according to your self-justifying
morally inconsistent view of animal rights.

You most certainly do not live according to a
consistent view of animal rights, or you would be doing
something meaningful to avoid eating CD-causing produce.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

Veganism, while indeed
symbolic on the part of one individual, is indeed a potent,
meaningful act to express in practical terms my philosophical
convictions.

It is impotent and meaningless, EXCEPT as a cheap, easy
vehicle for parading around your phony virtue. You are
lazy, intellectually and physically, and don't wish to
do the hard work to be morally and practically
consistent. Your behavior VIOLATES the rights you
claim animals ought to have.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

....

You blame your refusal - not merely failure, but
insolent refusal - to respect the rights of animals on
the actions of others. You are a vile hypocrite and liar.


I'm home, I'm home, and not even Jonnie/Bill can destroy my joy.

Did you take Toto with you? How about the blind mental
defective?

Where did you go? I hope it was some place where you
could finally grow your own food, and at least try to
be morally consistent.

Are the Antioch (CA) police digging under the house to
try to find Sylvia's corpse?

Neener, neener, Jonnie --

I'm too happy to let your nonsense get to me.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



Neener, neener, Jonnie --

I'm too happy to let your nonsense get to me.

It's the false happiness of cognitive dissonance.

Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE, as this is ethibabble, certainly not science.
Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,
especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

--
Laurie Forti
Moderator
alt.food.vegan.science

"Laurie" wrote
Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE, as this is ethibabble, certainly not science.
Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,
especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

--
Laurie Forti
Moderator
alt.food.vegan.science

Shut up you gender-bender, that's not a moderated group, and you don't know
what the **** you're talking about.

"Bill" wrote in message
.net...
People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow are
hypocrites, and bad people. Karen Winter is one such
person.


All people are hypocrites and no one is completely good. It's not an
absolute. Deal with it.

-Jay

"Laurie" wrote in message
...
Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE, as this is ethibabble, certainly not science.
===============
Wow, what a coincidence, 'your' group isn't about science either!



Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,
especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

--
Laurie Forti
Moderator
alt.food.vegan.science

"Laurie" wrote in message ...
Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE,

No. I will post where I want to post. There was a time
when I stripped a.f.v.s from ALL my posts after you
sent me that nasty little email, but not any more.

Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,
especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

There's my reason for changing my mind.

"Derek" wrote in message ...

"Laurie" wrote in message ...
Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE,

No. I will post where I want to post. There was a time
when I stripped a.f.v.s from ALL my posts after you
sent me that nasty little email, but not any more.

Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,
especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

There's my reason for changing my mind.

Laurie wrote:
Hey gang, PLEASE stop cross-posting this thread on
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE, as this is ethibabble, certainly not science.

You mean alt.food.vegan.PSEUDOSCIENCE&VOODOO, Larry, as
nothing on that group has a shred of scientific
credibility. It is your angry polemical pseudoscience;
that's all.

Note that all discussions of morality and ethics are meaningless,

No, they are not. You may feel there are philosophical
problems with any conclusions reached in those topics,
but it doesn't mean the discussions are meaningless.

You're a hypocrite, anyway. You believe that there is
a valid, societal notion of right and wrong, and that
if you are wronged, society will help you to obtain
redress.

You stink, Larry.

especially when one is trying to convince someone else of their ethical
degeneracy, since there is no objective standards by which to measure
anyone's personal set of ethics.

Irrelevent.