On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:43:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they do.
>>>>
>>>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>>>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>>>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>>>
>>>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
>>
>> Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
>> can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
>> means you're lying again, Ditch.
>
>Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
>rights.
Then she's as misguided and as hypocritical as
you are, for no one can have rights-holders
farmed and slaughtered for their own gains
without deluding themselves. How very typical
of you to try justifying your own sad hypocrisy
by referring to another's.
>Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
>veal cutlets.
Ray Slater and Zakhar supported vivisection
and still tried to convince others that they
promoted animal rights, too, but they were
soon made to see the error of their ways
and left here in utter disgrace. Martha
Stewart is obviously of the same thin cloth if
what you claim about her has any truth to it.
She's a drooling wolf in sheep's clothing and
a hypocrite, just like you.
>>>You can't have it both ways
>>
>> That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
>> you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.
>
>I don't abuse any animals Derek.
You have them farmed and slaughtered for you,
and that is abuse. You know it, too, and Google
shows that you do;
"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26
http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz
>> <restore>
>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault
>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who
>> would abuse them."
>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
>>
>> In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
>> over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
>> archives;
>>
>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>
>> and
>>
>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>> the animal or species."
>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>
>> and
>>
>> "I recently signed a petition online supporting
>> an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
>> Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights
>> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>> animals would not exist."
>> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
>>
>> and
>>
>> "If they are inherent in humans then why are
>> they not in some way inherent in all animals?
>> I think rights are a human invention which we
>> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
>> certain situations to other animals."
>> ...
>> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought
>> to be prohibited from extending some form of
>> rights towards animals in their care."
>> ...
>> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
>> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
>> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
>> within our sphere of influence."
>> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb
>>
>> When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
>> you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
>> the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
>> you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
>> the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
>> liar, Ditch.
>>
>> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
>> matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
>
>Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
>rights
Then why have you made statements claiming the
belief and proponents of that belief are absurd
all these years, hypocrite? Below are just two
statements from you attacking the proposition
out of literally hundreds during the time you've
been trolling here;
"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001
http://tinyurl.com/6wffc
and
"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002
http://tinyurl.com/47wy4
You either lying now or you were lying then,
but that's nothing new where you're concerned.
>, yet who is not an ARA.
An [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate is someone who
advocates rights for animals, and being that you've
been posting here on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
for over five years on a daily basis, feigning an
ignorance over the acronym to escape being seen
as a lying hypocrite is absurd.
>I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.
>
>The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.
What makes you believe that you enrage me in any
way, and what does your obvious efforts to enrage
your opponents say about your general participation
as a meat-eater on vegetarian news groups, Ditch?