FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote in message >. ..
> 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.

Is their friend "rick etter" (or shall I call him, "prick eater" in
accordance with ng protocol) an ARA as well? I noticed that he
immediately jumped on me and called me a "killer" right after I wrote
a post suggesting that hunting was a good way to obtain "natural"
meat. That's what "ARA's" do, isn't it?

> 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.

Yes, I do notice he loves stealing others' email addies so he can
cause trouble on other groups without thinking he can be "caught"
(e.g. alt.philosopy, misc.rural, rec.boats, and so forth). Perhaps
this "rick etter" fellow has me confused with this "ARA" Gonad's
forgeries, and whatever "ARA" sentiments he has put forth under the
forged address.

(I am not now, nor have I ever been an "activist" or "vegan", although
I am interested in healthy nutrition. And yes, I am the original
owner of this address, as evidenced by my posting from Google. You
cannot forge an address when posting from Google.)

I would like to further point out that, among his activities on these
other groups, are some rather intense left-wing sentiments regarding
immigration law and the like. Just do a Google search on his sock nym
"Wilson Woods" on misc.rural.

> 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.

Perhaps what also disturbs them about the idea of anyone liking soy
milk is the idea that it even *resembles* an animal product.
Otherwise, I'm sure that is an issue most outsiders wouldn't think to
lose any sleep over.

> 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 not 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.