FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:16:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Auntie Nettles" > wrote
>>
wrote
>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>Rick, Jonathan and I are three of the most consistent and outspoken
>>*anti*-ARAs posting to aaev and tpa.
>
>
> Etter opposes "AR", and there are plenty of examples of it. There are
> no examples of you and Ball opposing it.

Yes, there are. They are almost identical to Rick's.

>>>>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".

No. That's paranoid nonsense.

>>>>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,
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes.

No. It's absurd, and you KNOW it's false.

>>Don't make the mistake of believing anything dl_hd aka ****wit Harrison
>>has to say.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>None. He's a shit disturber, yes, but not an ARA,
>
>
> You are both "ARAs".

No. Neither Dutch nor I is an "ara", and you know it,
****wit.

>
>
>>and he doesn't care about
>>"getting caught".
>>
>>
>>>(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.)
>>
>>He stopped posting as you long ago, right?

I never posted as her.

>>>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.
>>
>>I doubt if they are left wing sentiments coming from him, better take
>>another look.
>>
>>
>>>> One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
>>>>consider any alternative to veg*nism
>>
>>Like all sane people we support omnivorism without guilt as an alternative
>>to veganism. dl_hd supports a bizarre form of double-reverse AR which
>>proposes that we commit a moral *good* to raise livestock and let them
>>exerience life which cancels out the moral wrong we commit by killing them.
>>It's quite a revolting and contorted form of self-gratification, worse than
>>AR in my opinion.
>
>
> Of course that's because you're an "ARA".

He isn't an "ara", and you know it. Stop lying.

>
>
>>>>--especially any alternative which
>>>>would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
>>>>animals.
>>
>>That's a lie and a weak equivoacation, we all support animal welfare.
>
>
> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal welfare.
> You don't.

He does. I do.

What we don't allow you to do is take conditional
support for animal welfare - IF the animals exist - and
invalidly turn it into absolute support for creating
farm animals.

We stop you.

>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>As meat consumers we do not support or consider the elimination of farm
>>animals a worthy goal. We do not however consider it a moral wrong per se.
>
>
> You insist that only the animals' deaths are worthy of consideration

No. We say that only their deaths are worthy of MORAL
consideration. That's true; there is no moral value
WHATEVER in their "getting to experience life". You do
not do a good deed by causing animals to live; you are
not giving them the "gift of life", you are not giving
them a "benefit".

> their lives are not, meaning that someone would have to be an idiot to believe
> you support animal welfare.

No. He DOES support animal welfare, as do I, but only
IF the animals exist. Support for animal welfare IF
the animals exist does not logically or rationally
translate to support for causing animals to exist.

>>There would be NO *moral* loss if there were NO more livestock in the world.
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps what also disturbs them about the idea of anyone liking soy
>>>milk is the idea that it even *resembles* an animal product.
>>
>>Since we aren't ARAs that is a non sequitor, but most vegetarians enjoy
>>"meat-like" products and I see it as a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>
>>****wit doesn't know what a rhetorical device is. He's a poorly educated
>>mimimum-wage bozo redneck who posts here because he think it makes him our
>>intellectual match.
>
> [...]
>
> No.

Yes. You are a high school drop-out working for
minimum wage. You are a redneck, and you are a bozo.

> I think you are stupider than I could be even if I tried.

No, you don't. You know that you are stupid, that you
don't know a single relevant thing to the discussion.