On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

>JethroUK© wrote:
>> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>
>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Haven't lied once
>
>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>
>> - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong
>
>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.

Yes you do Gonad. You believe that their
lives mean nothing, but their deaths are very
significant. You have no opposition to "AR",
and have tried to promote its accetance
many times:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT

the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance

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

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

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.

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear

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.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

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

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

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.]

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.

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

22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
wrote:

> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,

No, they don't.

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I am a meat
>eater;

You are a liar--there is no question about
that--and I believe you are lying when you say
you eat meat.