Dreck lied about my logic.

The crucial context that the liar omitted is his
*earlier* false statement of logic that he attributed
to me, and my correction of it:

Dreck the liar:
That being so, according to your logic, those
black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
deserving of them.

Jon:
False. You have the wrong every time.

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.

And so it is with animals. YOU don't believe they
have
rights, because you knowingly and cheerfully violate
"them".


Dreck MISSTATED my logic as suggesting that consuming
products obtained in a way that violates rights in
which you profess to believe means that the supposed
rights holders don't really hold those rights. He
lied, of course, as Dreck always lies. My logic does
not hold that consuming the products means the victims
don't have rights; it means that the consumer does not
BELIEVE they have rights that deserve protection.
That's very different, of course, which is why the
lifelong liar and moral shirker Dreck Nash lied about it.

Dreck and ~~rat****~~ don't *really* believe animals
have rights, because they consistently and KNOWINGLY
participate in a process that violates the "rights"
they claim to believe animals have. They are not
compelled to engage in this violation; they do it
because they choose to do it.

Dreck and ~~rat****~~ both are deliberate liars and
hypocrites. Dreck does it because he is fundamentally
stupid, unserious and thinks it's cute. ~~rat****~~
does it because she is intellectually overmatched, and
desperate.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:17:27 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Dreck lied about my logic.

Snip right there, your logic, like your mind, is fatally flawed. you
fat, lard arse dwarf.

Go away and come back when you have learnt the art of debate, &
constructive sentencing.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

Because you earlier wrote;

"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

[start]
From: Derek )
Subject: Child slavery and chocolate.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Date: 2003-07-29 10:47:08 PST

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message arthlink.net...
Derek wrote:

and you support
it. According to your rule you don't believe those
black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.

You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
I wouldn't support it if there were.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
exist. You're a liar living in denial.

Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
haven't posted this bit of crapola before.

Irrelevant. It proves slave labour exists, and that
it is prevalent in the chocolate industry you support.

[WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.

That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.

Yes, it does, and the chocolate industry has
announced that it accepts responsibility for
it too.

The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html

This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
slavery.

"A Knight Ridder investigation published in June found
that some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast."

But there isn't.

There is, and you support it.

There isn't, and you couldn't possibly hope to
substantiate it.

I already have.

[The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]

No citatation of source. How conVEEEEEEEEnient.

** I did give the citation.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights
report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
and coffee plantations.

COFFEE? I'm talking about chocolate, you lying
fool.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

** See, liar?

[On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

No, that's not what the State Department reported at
all.

It certainly did.

You, and these shrill activists, lied.

No. You're the one doing all the lying and denying
your support for child slave labour.

The claim of slavery is debunked.

It's a proven fact.

and there's no use you denying that you
support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.

I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery.

You do buy chocolate, and you do support
the slavery that goes with it.

That being so, according to your logic, those
black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
deserving of them.

False. You have the wrong every time.

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.

Whether you or I eat the stuff is irrelevant. What
is relevant is your claim that those kids aren't
seen as rights bearers by people who do buy
chocolate from them. It's an absurd claim which
you can't substantiate.
[end]

When will you ever stop lying, Jonathan?

Derek wrote:

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

Dreck lied about my logic.


Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad people.


Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have. But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights. That was not my logic, shitbag.
You lied.

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

Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
people.

That's you.

Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have.

..... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights.

Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

That was not my logic, shitbag.
You lied.

Re-read it. You're saying the same thing twice.

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:

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


Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
people.


That's you.

Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have.


.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

Which you do.



But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights.


Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
that something is so, and something being so, are not
equivalent.

You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
debate.

"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...


Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
people.


That's you.

Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have.


.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

Which you do.



But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights.


Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
that something is so, and something being so, are not
equivalent.

You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
debate.


Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does buying
chocalte have to do with children's rights?
And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

damon 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...


Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
people.


That's you.


Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have.


.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

Which you do.



But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights.


Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
that something is so, and something being so, are not
equivalent.

You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
debate.


Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does buying
chocalte have to do with children's rights?
And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't. Kids are "leased" into
indentured servitude by their parents. It's for a
fixed term, and the children are paid a wage, even if
it's their parents who collect it. It's the kind of
thing that goes in poor countries.

It's brought up, here, by smarmy "animal rights
activists" who cannot address their complicity in the
violation of the "rights" they say animals ought to
have, except by trying to engage in a _tu quoque_ argument.

"damon" wrote

Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does
buying
chocalte have to do with children's rights?
And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

Something about child slavery in cocoa fields...

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


Dreck lied about my logic.

Here's the complete thread which proves you're the
hypocrite as described in your opening post to this
thread when you wrote;
"People who advocate that everyone adopt a moral
standard that the advocates themselves don't follow
are hypocrites, and bad people."

That's a true statement: people who advocate that
everyone adopt a moral standard that the advocates
themselves don't follow *are* hypocrites, and bad
people.


That's you.


Because you earlier wrote;

"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

Right, shitbag: my logic is that you do not respect
the rights you claim the children have.


.... if you knowingly buy chocolate from them.

Which you do.



But earlier,
you lied and said that my "logic" is that if you
knowingly buy the chocolate, it means the children
don't have rights.


Which is exactly the same thing, stupid. You're a fool.

No, it isn't the same thing at all, shitbag. Believing
that something is so, and something being so, are not
equivalent.

You believe you can debate. You are wrong. You cannot
debate.


Okay I admit it. I'm missing part of this discussion. Just what does
buying
chocalte have to do with children's rights?
And all this time I thought AMD was the most wacked NG.

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't. Kids are "leased" into
indentured servitude by their parents. It's for a
fixed term, and the children are paid a wage, even if
it's their parents who collect it. It's the kind of
thing that goes in poor countries.

It's brought up, here, by smarmy "animal rights
activists" who cannot address their complicity in the
violation of the "rights" they say animals ought to
have, except by trying to engage in a _tu quoque_ argument.


Thanks for the info. Man these animal rights dweebs are ****in insane.

damon wrote:

snip
Thanks for the info. Man these animal rights dweebs are ****in insane.

Never take anything Jon Ball says at face value. This exchange has
a long history in TPA/AAEV, and, if you are really intersted in why
it is here, you could look up the complete exchange in Google.

Rat

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

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists, so you're
a liar living in denial while benefitting from child labour.

WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html


Knight Ridder News Service
June 28, 2001
By Sumana Chatterjee


Jun. 28--WASHINGTON--After months of saying there
was little or no evidence of child slavery on cocoa farms
in Ivory Coast, chocolate manufacturers and their industry
groups are ratcheting up global efforts to combat the
problem. The U.S. government is investigating whether to
tell its agencies to stop buying cocoa products because
of the Ivory Coast slavery, a Labor Department spokesman
said Wednesday. A joint industry-government survey of
cocoa farms begins next month, and the international cocoa
industry has called a special meeting for July to discuss
ways to end slavery on the farms that supply cocoa beans.
http://tinyurl.com/tbs9

The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

There is no denying these facts on child slave labour,
and there's no use you denying you support this slavery
every time you buy chocolate. That being so, according
to your logic, those black kids don't have any rights and
aren't even deserving of them because you earlier wrote;

"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

This proves you're the hypocrite as described in
your opening post to this thread when you wrote;

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

Derek wrote:

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

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't.


There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,

None. It doesn't exist. Their labor market doesn't
work as labor markets work in developed economies, but
there is no slavery. Indentured servitude and slavery
are not the same thing.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Derek wrote:

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

Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't.


There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,

None. It doesn't exist.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.

WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html


Knight Ridder News Service
June 28, 2001
By Sumana Chatterjee

Jun. 28--WASHINGTON--After months of saying there
was little or no evidence of child slavery on cocoa farms
in Ivory Coast, chocolate manufacturers and their industry
groups are ratcheting up global efforts to combat the
problem. The U.S. government is investigating whether to
tell its agencies to stop buying cocoa products because
of the Ivory Coast slavery, a Labor Department spokesman
said Wednesday. A joint industry-government survey of
cocoa farms begins next month, and the international cocoa
industry has called a special meeting for July to discuss
ways to end slavery on the farms that supply cocoa beans.
http://tinyurl.com/tbs9

The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28...slavery_020327

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

There is no denying these facts on child slave labour,
and there's no use you denying you support this slavery
every time you buy chocolate. That being so, according
to your logic, those black kids don't have any rights and
aren't even deserving of them because you earlier wrote;

"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

This proves you're the hypocrite as described in
your opening post to this thread when you wrote;

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

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:


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


Some people with more time on their hands than sense
(and a guilty conscience) claim, without evidence, that
the cocoa crop in West Africa is harvested using child
slave labor. It isn't.


There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists,

None. It doesn't exist.


There IS plenty of evidence proving it exists.

It doesn't exist. What you keep tiresomely reposting,
apparently without having read it (we don't expect much
analysis from uneducated greasemonkeys) talks about
indentured servitude, not slavery.