> slobbered on the keyboard and puked up..
> 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 the Gonad opposing it.
You just proved yourself again to be the biggest moron of all time.
[..]
> >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".
An ARA who advocates omnivorism without guilt, explain how that works
****wit..
>
> >--especially any alternative which
> >> > would be a deliberate attempt to contribute to decent lives for farm
> >> > animals.
> >
> >That's a lie and a weak equivocation, we all support animal welfare.
>
> If you supported animal welfare, then you would support animal
welfare.
That's brilliant.
> You don't.
I support AW for animals once they are born. You argue that I must advocate
them being born to be an AW advocate, that's erroneous.
> >> > 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
Not just their deaths, the fact that we *deliberately kill* them is morally
considerable.
> but
> their lives are not,
Their lives are not per se a moral issue.
> meaning that someone would have to be an idiot to believe
> you support animal welfare.
No, one would have to be an idiot (i.e. you) to fail to understand that AW
only applies to animals that are born. Ensuring that they are born is not a
moral issue, it's a matter of convenience and need.
> >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