For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on
referred to more correctly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
"ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents. They did it
attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents, in order
to have more influence on their thinking about issues which could
be significant to "AR". The Gonad's character was also designed to
make "AR" opponents appear as childish, inconsiderate of humans
and animals, dishonest, meddling, and the lowest form of news group
participant in general.
One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
consider any alternative to veg*nism--especially any alternative which
would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
animals. The reason for that was desperation to prevent people from
considering that humans could take some approach that is ethically
equivalent or superior to the "AR" hopes of eliminating domestic
animals.

Though their position has been clear for all to see, we now have
absolute proof that both Dutch and the Gonad are "ARAs" who accept
the beliefs of one of the earliest fathers of the "AR" concept, and one
of the earliest promoters of vegetarianism. That early father of "AR" was
Henry S. Salt. Here is absolute proof that they both accept Salt's beliefs
....this particular incredibly anthropomorphic example is from a fantasy that
they consider to be the position of pigs:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID: >

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

". . . I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in
no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake,
but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end
barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter >
Reply-To:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.philosophy
Subject: Why existence per se cannot be a benefit
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:38:34 GMT

An English philosopher named Henry Salt wrote a succinct and
compelling refutation of the (il)logic of the larder nearly
100 years ago; you can read it at http://tinyurl.com/3fvo4
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Having established without doubt that they accept the position of Henry
Salt, here is proof of what Salt, Dutch and the Gonad stand for:
__________________________________________________ _______
History of Vegetarianism
Henry S. Salt (1851-1939)
On Henry Salt's 'Animal Rights'

by Stephen Ronan

The philosophical basis for animal protection using the
concept of "rights" is not, as many believe, a recent
phenomenon. One of the classic books on the subject was
published in 1892 by the great humanitarian Henry Salt.
His book is entitled "Animals' Rights: Considered in
Relation to Social Progress."

Peter Singer, in a preface to the Society for Animal
Rights edition, states, "More momentous still was [Salt's]
influence on Gandhi, whom Salt had befriended when Gandhi
first arrived in England, alone, unknown and unable to
find vegetarian food. Gandhi later wrote that he owed his
thoughts about civil disobedience and non-cooperation to
Salt's book on the then little-known American radical,
Henry Thoreau."

Gandhi also, apparently, once stated, "It was Mr. Salt's
book, "A Plea for Vegetarianism", which showed me why,
apart from hereditary habit, and apart from my adherence
to a vow administered to me by my mother, it was right
to be a vegetarian. He showed me why it was a moral duty
incumbent on vegetarians not to live upon fellow-animals."

The following are the words of Henry Salt excerpted from
the start of his 1892 book, "Animals' Rights: Considered
in Relation to Social Progress."

ANIMALS' RIGHTS: Considered in Relation to Social Progress

From Preface:

We have to decide, not whether the practice of fox-hunting,
for example, is more, or less, cruel than vivisection, but
whether all practices which inflict unnecessary pain on
sentient beings are not incompatible with the higher
instincts of humanity.

CHAPTER 1: The Principle of Animals' Rights

Have the lower animals "rights?" Undoubtedly--if men have.
That is the point I wish to make evident in this opening
chapter.
[...]
http://www.ivu.org/history/salt/rights.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and the Gonad are
dishonest "ARAs", and those of you who have been fooled by them
into unreasonably believing they are "AR" opponents, the proof of
their position is now laid before you. Those of you who believed them
to be "AR" opponents are likely to experience cognitive dissonance,
creating a state of denial in which you will still try to cling to the
absurd notion that your heros are not really what they have been
shown to be. But the proof of their true position has been exposed,
and you would do better to simply accept it.