On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:02:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> 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..

Let's see an example of how you advocate it.

>> >--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.

With no thought of providing decent welfare for those who will be
born in the future.

>You argue that I must advocate
>them being born to be an AW advocate,

And you don't. You advocate acceptance of your elimination objective
simply because there would be no moral loss, and oppose consideration
of deliberately contributing to decent lives for farm animals because you
say it's not worthy of moral consideration. But that's a lie. You very very
obviously believe it's worthy of moral consideration, which is the reason
you oppose the suggestion that people give it that consideration.