 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Martin Willett wrote:
> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >> Martin Willett wrote: >>> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>> I am not claiming to be generally picked on and victimized for >>>>>>> something beyond my control I am complaining that you are picking >>>>>>> on me in a narrow-minded and hateful attack that you think is >>>>>>> somehow justified. >>>>>> >>>>>> You made the original post as a trolling post. - Live with the >>>>>> consequences. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What have I done, to you personally, to justify being personally >>>>>>> attacked in this shabby and inept way? >>>>>> >>>>>> I found your trolling post irritating, especially when I found >>>>>> it's been done before, and it seems to be engineered to advertise >>>>>> you and your site. >>>>>> >>>>>> I had a few moments to irritate you as a interlude to an otherwise >>>>>> busy life. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've had enough now. Real life has caught up, and I'm bored with >>>>>> this, so I'll probably stop. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I did not set out to annoy anybody except Michael Rippie. The >>>>> intention was to have a light-hearted but fruitless off-topic >>>>> discussion all over his newsgroup that was beyond his reasoning >>>>> powers to join in with. >>>>> >>>>> Promoting my website is entirely secondary. I always sign off with >>>>> a link to my site and naturally the site is a source for the raw >>>>> material for the debate. >>>>> >>>>> You can see that I have no intention of damaging your newsgroup >>>>> from the fact that I have not started multiple separate threads in >>>>> it. Neither have I made attacks on any people in your group. On the >>>>> other hand if you looked at Rippie's group you would see the >>>>> difference. >>>>> >>>>> If you are wondering why I would be so vindictive then you >>>>> obviously do not understand who Michael Rippie is and how he >>>>> operates. For the last ten years he has been trying to raise money >>>>> for a fake church, he uses a wide range of bizarre, illegal and >>>>> immoral methods. He posts across various newsgroups using material >>>>> he has stolen, trying to get people to agree with him so they can >>>>> send him money. >>>>> >>>>> His latest scheme has reached the bottom of the barrel as he is >>>>> pretending to run a charity raising money for Tanzanians. He must >>>>> have found some pictures of a school run by The Last Church of >>>>> Jesus Christ in Tanzania, this is an indigenous African Christian >>>>> church that has never sought overseas funding and of course has no >>>>> connection with a religious lunatic from Nevada. The slimy ******* >>>>> is using images of that project to make out that he built that >>>>> school with charity money he raised. >>>>> >>>>> I am on a mission to ensure that nobody ever gets taken in by that >>>>> unscrupulous charlatan. >>>>> >>>>> Now do you understand? Well, at least a little better? >>>>> >>>>> The thread here was on topic and featured material I wrote myself >>>>> and novel ideas that have not been flogged to death here already. I >>>>> have done nothing to trash your newsgroup or to insult your >>>>> lifestyle choices. >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Martin Willett >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://mwillett.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> I've never heard of "Michael Rippie", but I do share a hate of fake >>>> (and some real) charities, especially those that exploit the >>>> vulnerable. If your observations are true, I genuinely wish you all >>>> the best (with that). I do think however that wasn't your aim in the >>>> OP, if it was you would have mentioned him, and you didn't. >>>> >>>> I still think your post was to troll. (Why post the OP on a NG (that >>>> will be visited in isolation) that I don't believe MR has posted to >>>> before?) - I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong here. >>>> >>>> I get fed up of things akin to "carrots scream", and "aliens eating >>>> you" type arguments, they have been done to death, at least with me. >>> >>> If you care to check you will see I have debated here before and not >>> in the usual knockabout style either. I have also debated on >>> vegetarian and vegan debate sites and even been invited back. >> >> Whoopee do. >> >>> >>> You seem to have jumped down my throat, being too quick to judge me >>> as if I was one of a hate-group who does not require individual >>> attention. That is the downside of stereotyping, sure it saves time >>> sometimes to decide to hate somebody you don't know on the basis of >>> your assumption that they belong to a category in your head (troll in >>> this case) but it isn't a good strategy, we should all be aware of >>> that by now. >> >> I still think your OP was a troll. > > It was a republication of of a deliberately provocative article AKA troll > designed > to encourage people to respond. It was also crossposted. I can > understand the confusion. > > I can do trolling, and I'm good at it. Very good at it. In fact I've not > met anybody better, despite asking for candidates for the past five > years: http://mwillett.org/troll.htm > > What is wrong with posting provocative material and debating it on your > newsgroup? It is not 'my' newsgroup. What is wrong is the *reason* behind the posting > Surely the problem with trolling, what led people to invent a > label for it, is generating lots of heated replies and ignoring them or > posting stuff you don't believe in simply to get a reaction or to insult > people. I have generated a small and well controlled debate, on topic, > and I have argued sincerely, politely and with panache with everybody > who has responded. In what way is that A Bad Thing? No. - You are a master of equivocation. > > Should newsgroup posts be by invitation only, after an apprenticeship of > several months of lurking and making polite agreeing noises posting > material that is as sensational as a mashed potato sandwich on white bread? > > I can write and make people take notice, sorry. > >> >>> >>> I am well aware of aliens eating people arguments, they are usually >>> rather fatuous ideas launched by vegetarians who obviously did not >>> use such arguments themselves in order to decide to become >>> vegetarian, because the argument is so lame. I decided to follow that >>> line of argument to the point of absurdity, do a little jig and twist >>> it round the other way. The key serious point is that you cannot make >>> a deal with animals or the universe by which you sacrifice the >>> enjoyment of eating meat and receive something back in return. It is >>> a one way thing. You give up eating meat and in return, what? You get >>> a soapbox to lecture other people from, if you care to use it, and so >>> many do. But nothing else, the universe doesn't care and animals >>> don't notice. >> >> "The animals don't notice". A classic line. > > I mean the animals you aren't eating don't notice you not eating them. Perhaps the animals you are eating do notice. > > I challenge you to walk through a field of beef cattle with me and see > if the cattle treat you any different. They do not. It is STUPID to think they would. - No one I know would think it would make a difference. > >> >>> >>> If you were faced with marauding aliens (or indeed sharks or lions) >>> making a choice not to eat animals would not in any way protect you >>> and it might even make you more desirable in the same way grass fed >>> beef gets a premium price. >> >> I don't think any vegetarian would propose that not eating meat would >> protect them from a predatory species. Perhaps the idea is one of >> engendering a thought process. >> >> >>> That disposes of the whole "what if somebody were to eat you, huh?" >>> line of arguing. All that would happen is that vegans herded into >>> slaughter houses would feel even more aggrieved, especially if they >>> had previously enjoyed eating meat. >> >> I think you're slightly deranged. >> >>> >>> People should strip away the nonsense and confront the central issue: >>> is eating meat actually wrong. If so, why? And to me there isn't any >>> obvious answer to that. So much vegetarian propaganda, much of it >>> produced by vegetarians for vegetarians (Why? Don't people know why >>> they are vegetarian?) is the churning out of specious arguments that >>> don't amount to a good case and have nothing to do with the reasons >>> why vegetarians actually do choose to become vegetarians. Somehow >>> vegetarians seem to think that arguments that didn't convince them >>> (because they have just invented them) will convince meat-eaters. >>> That doesn't even begin to make sense. >> >> You seem bitter. What events in your life have triggered this apparent >> hatred? Don't answer that. > > That is a common reaction: You don't agree with me and you tell me, you > must be very bitter, were you sexually abused as a child...? > > I don't agree with people and I tell them and I enjoy doing it. Why does > that mean I'm bitter? I have beliefs and I have a passion, for some of > them at least. I also debate a lot on newsgroups with people who assume > I must be bitter and twisted because I don't think like they do or > assume I must be violently and extremely pro or anti whatever it is or I > wouldn't be debating at all. I like disagreement, It leads to understanding and ultimately knowledge. You are very adept in avoidance. An intriguant. > > I am not black and white. I have shades, and colours and depth and > sincerity. I would like to believe that; but you show an obvious dislike for people who avoid eating a particular consumer product. Coeliac's avoid wheat, why don't you attack them? > >> >>> >>> This whole thread is designed to have a fully legitimate on topic >>> debate that is on topic to all the newsgroups I have posted it to >>> except alt.religion.the-last-church where its presence is intended to >>> annoy Michael Rippie. I want to ensure that if anybody comes across >>> either his newsgroup or his website they rather soon come across me >>> and my message that he is a charlatan, a con-man, a plagiarist and an >>> armed lunatic who lives in the desert with a lot of guns, believes he >>> has been raised from the dead by God and because of that is not bound >>> by the laws, norms or mores that the rest of us live by. He claims I >>> am forced into telling the world about his sins by the power of >>> Rippie's mind, I am his puppet. Naturally the idea was for me to >>> prove I was free by going away and letting him get on with lying to >>> people in peace. No chance. >> >> Another question that I don't want you to answer. Is M.R. a vegetarian? > > I doubt it very much, I'm sure it would have come up by now if he was. > >> >>> >>> To me it doesn't matter if I discuss veganism and animal welfare, >>> aliens, God, American foreign policy, the theory and practice of >>> masturbation, sex with animals, paedophilia, Zionism as a form of >>> racism, me and my body or the lack of a sex life of Michael Rippie as >>> long as I do it all over alt.religion.the-last-church but I am sure >>> you would rather get back on topic so please feel free to do so. >> >> There's more to my life than this. > > I'm glad to hear it. Defining yourself by what you don't eat doesn't > strike me as much of a life, or even a hobby. I'm more than that, but not more than an 'hairless' ape. > > -- > > Martin Willett > > > http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Jean Clingfilm"wrote
>> I mean the animals you aren't eating don't notice you not eating them. > > Perhaps the animals you are eating do notice. Nobody eats animals, they eat meat. Eating an animal would be dangerous, they would probably bite you. [..] > I like disagreement, It leads to understanding and ultimately knowledge. You don't want knowledge, you want to proselytize your "vegan" pseudo-philosophy because it gives you a perverse pleasure to think of others as less enlightened than you. [..] > I would like to believe that; but you show an obvious dislike for people > who avoid eating a particular consumer product. > > Coeliac's avoid wheat, why don't you attack them? Do they shriek from the hilltops that wheat-eaters are immoral? [..] >>Defining yourself by what you don't eat doesn't strike me as much of a >>life, or even a hobby. > I'm more than that, but not more than an 'hairless' ape. Nobody I know eats ape meat, but as a human being you ARE more than a hairless ape. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote: >> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>> Jean Clingfilm wrote: >>>>>>> Martin Willett wrote: >>>>>>>> I am not claiming to be generally picked on and victimized for >>>>>>>> something beyond my control I am complaining that you are >>>>>>>> picking on me in a narrow-minded and hateful attack that you >>>>>>>> think is somehow justified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You made the original post as a trolling post. - Live with the >>>>>>> consequences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What have I done, to you personally, to justify being personally >>>>>>>> attacked in this shabby and inept way? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found your trolling post irritating, especially when I found >>>>>>> it's been done before, and it seems to be engineered to advertise >>>>>>> you and your site. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had a few moments to irritate you as a interlude to an >>>>>>> otherwise busy life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've had enough now. Real life has caught up, and I'm bored with >>>>>>> this, so I'll probably stop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not set out to annoy anybody except Michael Rippie. The >>>>>> intention was to have a light-hearted but fruitless off-topic >>>>>> discussion all over his newsgroup that was beyond his reasoning >>>>>> powers to join in with. >>>>>> >>>>>> Promoting my website is entirely secondary. I always sign off with >>>>>> a link to my site and naturally the site is a source for the raw >>>>>> material for the debate. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can see that I have no intention of damaging your newsgroup >>>>>> from the fact that I have not started multiple separate threads in >>>>>> it. Neither have I made attacks on any people in your group. On >>>>>> the other hand if you looked at Rippie's group you would see the >>>>>> difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are wondering why I would be so vindictive then you >>>>>> obviously do not understand who Michael Rippie is and how he >>>>>> operates. For the last ten years he has been trying to raise money >>>>>> for a fake church, he uses a wide range of bizarre, illegal and >>>>>> immoral methods. He posts across various newsgroups using material >>>>>> he has stolen, trying to get people to agree with him so they can >>>>>> send him money. >>>>>> >>>>>> His latest scheme has reached the bottom of the barrel as he is >>>>>> pretending to run a charity raising money for Tanzanians. He must >>>>>> have found some pictures of a school run by The Last Church of >>>>>> Jesus Christ in Tanzania, this is an indigenous African Christian >>>>>> church that has never sought overseas funding and of course has no >>>>>> connection with a religious lunatic from Nevada. The slimy ******* >>>>>> is using images of that project to make out that he built that >>>>>> school with charity money he raised. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am on a mission to ensure that nobody ever gets taken in by that >>>>>> unscrupulous charlatan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now do you understand? Well, at least a little better? >>>>>> >>>>>> The thread here was on topic and featured material I wrote myself >>>>>> and novel ideas that have not been flogged to death here already. >>>>>> I have done nothing to trash your newsgroup or to insult your >>>>>> lifestyle choices. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin Willett >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://mwillett.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've never heard of "Michael Rippie", but I do share a hate of fake >>>>> (and some real) charities, especially those that exploit the >>>>> vulnerable. If your observations are true, I genuinely wish you all >>>>> the best (with that). I do think however that wasn't your aim in >>>>> the OP, if it was you would have mentioned him, and you didn't. >>>>> >>>>> I still think your post was to troll. (Why post the OP on a NG >>>>> (that will be visited in isolation) that I don't believe MR has >>>>> posted to before?) - I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong here. >>>>> >>>>> I get fed up of things akin to "carrots scream", and "aliens eating >>>>> you" type arguments, they have been done to death, at least with me. >>>> >>>> If you care to check you will see I have debated here before and not >>>> in the usual knockabout style either. I have also debated on >>>> vegetarian and vegan debate sites and even been invited back. >>> >>> Whoopee do. >>> >>>> >>>> You seem to have jumped down my throat, being too quick to judge me >>>> as if I was one of a hate-group who does not require individual >>>> attention. That is the downside of stereotyping, sure it saves time >>>> sometimes to decide to hate somebody you don't know on the basis of >>>> your assumption that they belong to a category in your head (troll >>>> in this case) but it isn't a good strategy, we should all be aware >>>> of that by now. >>> >>> I still think your OP was a troll. >> >> It was a republication of of a deliberately provocative article > > AKA troll > >> designed to encourage people to respond. It was also crossposted. I >> can understand the confusion. >> >> I can do trolling, and I'm good at it. Very good at it. In fact I've >> not met anybody better, despite asking for candidates for the past >> five years: http://mwillett.org/troll.htm >> >> What is wrong with posting provocative material and debating it on >> your newsgroup? > > It is not 'my' newsgroup. What is wrong is the *reason* behind the posting > > >> Surely the problem with trolling, what led people to invent a label >> for it, is generating lots of heated replies and ignoring them or >> posting stuff you don't believe in simply to get a reaction or to >> insult people. I have generated a small and well controlled debate, on >> topic, and I have argued sincerely, politely and with panache with >> everybody who has responded. In what way is that A Bad Thing? > > No. - You are a master of equivocation. > That was a reply only in the chronological sense. > >> >> Should newsgroup posts be by invitation only, after an apprenticeship >> of several months of lurking and making polite agreeing noises posting >> material that is as sensational as a mashed potato sandwich on white >> bread? >> >> I can write and make people take notice, sorry. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I am well aware of aliens eating people arguments, they are usually >>>> rather fatuous ideas launched by vegetarians who obviously did not >>>> use such arguments themselves in order to decide to become >>>> vegetarian, because the argument is so lame. I decided to follow >>>> that line of argument to the point of absurdity, do a little jig and >>>> twist it round the other way. The key serious point is that you >>>> cannot make a deal with animals or the universe by which you >>>> sacrifice the enjoyment of eating meat and receive something back in >>>> return. It is a one way thing. You give up eating meat and in >>>> return, what? You get a soapbox to lecture other people from, if you >>>> care to use it, and so many do. But nothing else, the universe >>>> doesn't care and animals don't notice. >>> >>> "The animals don't notice". A classic line. >> >> I mean the animals you aren't eating don't notice you not eating them. > > Perhaps the animals you are eating do notice. > >> >> I challenge you to walk through a field of beef cattle with me and see >> if the cattle treat you any different. > > They do not. It is STUPID to think they would. - No one I know would > think it would make a difference. > If people think about it logically then yes, you're right, it would be stupid to think like that. But how many animal lovers do think logically about it? >> >>> >>>> >>>> If you were faced with marauding aliens (or indeed sharks or lions) >>>> making a choice not to eat animals would not in any way protect you >>>> and it might even make you more desirable in the same way grass fed >>>> beef gets a premium price. >>> >>> I don't think any vegetarian would propose that not eating meat would >>> protect them from a predatory species. Perhaps the idea is one of >>> engendering a thought process. >>> >>> >>>> That disposes of the whole "what if somebody were to eat you, huh?" >>>> line of arguing. All that would happen is that vegans herded into >>>> slaughter houses would feel even more aggrieved, especially if they >>>> had previously enjoyed eating meat. >>> >>> I think you're slightly deranged. >>> >>>> >>>> People should strip away the nonsense and confront the central >>>> issue: is eating meat actually wrong. If so, why? And to me there >>>> isn't any obvious answer to that. So much vegetarian propaganda, >>>> much of it produced by vegetarians for vegetarians (Why? Don't >>>> people know why they are vegetarian?) is the churning out of >>>> specious arguments that don't amount to a good case and have nothing >>>> to do with the reasons why vegetarians actually do choose to become >>>> vegetarians. Somehow vegetarians seem to think that arguments that >>>> didn't convince them (because they have just invented them) will >>>> convince meat-eaters. That doesn't even begin to make sense. >>> >>> You seem bitter. What events in your life have triggered this >>> apparent hatred? Don't answer that. >> >> That is a common reaction: You don't agree with me and you tell me, >> you must be very bitter, were you sexually abused as a child...? >> >> I don't agree with people and I tell them and I enjoy doing it. Why >> does that mean I'm bitter? I have beliefs and I have a passion, for >> some of them at least. I also debate a lot on newsgroups with people >> who assume I must be bitter and twisted because I don't think like >> they do or assume I must be violently and extremely pro or anti >> whatever it is or I wouldn't be debating at all. > > I like disagreement, It leads to understanding and ultimately knowledge. > > You are very adept in avoidance. An intriguant. > > >> >> I am not black and white. I have shades, and colours and depth and >> sincerity. > > I would like to believe that; but you show an obvious dislike for people > who avoid eating a particular consumer product. > > Coeliac's avoid wheat, why don't you attack them? Obvious dislike? You are projecting. Show me where I have demonstrated an obvious dislike. You spotted I wasn't supporting you and assumed therefore that I must be one of them, the demon-bogeymen who hate your kind for twisted evil reasons. Veg*nism is not a simple exclusion diet for health reasons, not down to some perceived weakness in your own body, it is a lifestyle choice and often (but not always) a lifestyle choice which is thrust at and upon other people aggressively and even obnoxiously. People don't proclaim their coeliac status on t-shirts as if other people are meant to look up to them. Hitler didn't eat meat at times because he thought it made him fart. That isn't anything that justifies attacking him, however people used his vegetarianism to make propaganda, as if he was doing it for moral or spiritual reasons, as if it made him a better man. People who choose a vegetarian lifestyle for health reasons or personal vanity or to a gain control over some part of their life from overbearing parents and then decide to reap the rewards of standing on the moral high ground as if their decision was based on such a moral choice - that is what annoys me about vegetarians and vegans. I also get annoyed by veg*ns who made that choice for reason A going out of their way to promote reasons D E and F through to P R Q which not only didn't convince them but probably wouldn't convince anybody who hadn't already decided to make the choice for A B or C. Annoyance though, not hatred. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Martin Willett wrote:
snip >> >>> Surely the problem with trolling, what led people to invent a label >>> for it, is generating lots of heated replies and ignoring them or >>> posting stuff you don't believe in simply to get a reaction or to >>> insult people. I have generated a small and well controlled debate, >>> on topic, and I have argued sincerely, politely and with panache with >>> everybody who has responded. In what way is that A Bad Thing? >> >> No. - You are a master of equivocation. >> > > > That was a reply only in the chronological sense. You are a master of equivocation. > >> >>> >>> Should newsgroup posts be by invitation only, after an apprenticeship >>> of several months of lurking and making polite agreeing noises >>> posting material that is as sensational as a mashed potato sandwich >>> on white bread? >>> >>> I can write and make people take notice, sorry. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am well aware of aliens eating people arguments, they are usually >>>>> rather fatuous ideas launched by vegetarians who obviously did not >>>>> use such arguments themselves in order to decide to become >>>>> vegetarian, because the argument is so lame. I decided to follow >>>>> that line of argument to the point of absurdity, do a little jig >>>>> and twist it round the other way. The key serious point is that you >>>>> cannot make a deal with animals or the universe by which you >>>>> sacrifice the enjoyment of eating meat and receive something back >>>>> in return. It is a one way thing. You give up eating meat and in >>>>> return, what? You get a soapbox to lecture other people from, if >>>>> you care to use it, and so many do. But nothing else, the universe >>>>> doesn't care and animals don't notice. >>>> >>>> "The animals don't notice". A classic line. >>> >>> I mean the animals you aren't eating don't notice you not eating them. >> >> Perhaps the animals you are eating do notice. >> >>> >>> I challenge you to walk through a field of beef cattle with me and >>> see if the cattle treat you any different. >> >> They do not. It is STUPID to think they would. - No one I know would >> think it would make a difference. >> > > If people think about it logically then yes, you're right, it would be > stupid to think like that. But how many animal lovers do think logically > about it? I can not think of one scenario or person that would think that way. The thought that anyone would think that way is entirely yours. > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you were faced with marauding aliens (or indeed sharks or lions) >>>>> making a choice not to eat animals would not in any way protect you >>>>> and it might even make you more desirable in the same way grass fed >>>>> beef gets a premium price. >>>> >>>> I don't think any vegetarian would propose that not eating meat >>>> would protect them from a predatory species. Perhaps the idea is one >>>> of engendering a thought process. >>>> >>>> >>>>> That disposes of the whole "what if somebody were to eat you, huh?" >>>>> line of arguing. All that would happen is that vegans herded into >>>>> slaughter houses would feel even more aggrieved, especially if they >>>>> had previously enjoyed eating meat. >>>> >>>> I think you're slightly deranged. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> People should strip away the nonsense and confront the central >>>>> issue: is eating meat actually wrong. If so, why? And to me there >>>>> isn't any obvious answer to that. So much vegetarian propaganda, >>>>> much of it produced by vegetarians for vegetarians (Why? Don't >>>>> people know why they are vegetarian?) is the churning out of >>>>> specious arguments that don't amount to a good case and have >>>>> nothing to do with the reasons why vegetarians actually do choose >>>>> to become vegetarians. Somehow vegetarians seem to think that >>>>> arguments that didn't convince them (because they have just >>>>> invented them) will convince meat-eaters. That doesn't even begin >>>>> to make sense. >>>> >>>> You seem bitter. What events in your life have triggered this >>>> apparent hatred? Don't answer that. >>> >>> That is a common reaction: You don't agree with me and you tell me, >>> you must be very bitter, were you sexually abused as a child...? >>> >>> I don't agree with people and I tell them and I enjoy doing it. Why >>> does that mean I'm bitter? I have beliefs and I have a passion, for >>> some of them at least. I also debate a lot on newsgroups with people >>> who assume I must be bitter and twisted because I don't think like >>> they do or assume I must be violently and extremely pro or anti >>> whatever it is or I wouldn't be debating at all. >> >> I like disagreement, It leads to understanding and ultimately knowledge. >> >> You are very adept in avoidance. An intriguant. >> >> >>> >>> I am not black and white. I have shades, and colours and depth and >>> sincerity. >> >> I would like to believe that; but you show an obvious dislike for >> people who avoid eating a particular consumer product. >> >> Coeliac's avoid wheat, why don't you attack them? > > Obvious dislike? You are projecting. Show me where I have demonstrated > an obvious dislike. Most people dislike the things that annoy them. > > You spotted I wasn't supporting you and assumed therefore that I must be > one of them, the demon-bogeymen who hate your kind for twisted evil > reasons. > > Veg*nism is not a simple exclusion diet for health reasons, not down to > some perceived weakness in your own body, it is a lifestyle choice and > often (but not always) a lifestyle choice which is thrust at and upon > other people aggressively and even obnoxiously. > > People don't proclaim their coeliac status on t-shirts as if other > people are meant to look up to them. http://www.coeliac.co.uk/images/cm_i...irts%20web.jpg How can you read a relative moral status from a shirt? > > Hitler didn't eat meat at times because he thought it made him fart. > That isn't anything that justifies attacking him, however people used > his vegetarianism to make propaganda, as if he was doing it for moral or > spiritual reasons, as if it made him a better man. The only time I've seen the Hitler / vegetarian connection is when it's used to attack vegetarians. > People who choose a > vegetarian lifestyle for health reasons or personal vanity or to a gain > control over some part of their life from overbearing parents and then > decide to reap the rewards of standing on the moral high ground as if > their decision was based on such a moral choice - that is what annoys me > about vegetarians and vegans. I do not claim a moral high ground, as if I've walked up the hill of morality. You seem to have constructed this view to justify your dislike. >I also get annoyed by veg*ns who made that > choice for reason A going out of their way to promote reasons D E and F > through to P R Q which not only didn't convince them but probably > wouldn't convince anybody who hadn't already decided to make the choice > for A B or C. Who's going out of their way to promote any reason? You seem to have gone out of your way to invite conflict. > > Annoyance though, not hatred. The concept of hatred is your construct. I can see a dislike. A dislike based on an imaginary series of preconceptions of a group. > -- > > Martin Willett > > > http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Michael Rippie wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:59:46 +0000, Fartin Millett > wrote: >>> Willett wrote: >>> Promoting my website is number one. I steal from Rippie for that >>> very reason,and naturally the site is a source for the raw material >>> for the arguments I love. >>> >>> You see that I have every intention of damaging your newsgroup from the >>> fact that I have started multiple separate threads in it. >>> I made attacks on many people in your group. >>> >>> If you are wondering why I would be so vindictive then you obviously do >>> not understand who Martin Willett is and how I operate. For the last >>> ten years I Have been trying to destroy The Last Church, I use a >>> wide range of bizarre, illegal and immoral methods. I post across >>> various newsgroups using material I has stolen, trying to get people to >>> agree with me so they can send me money. > > Another broken record? Maybe it's a recording? Polly want a > tracker? Tell the truth. Are you Michael? Pathetic Michael, truly pathetic, just living up to your billing. See what I mean people? Rippie does not abide by any basic rules of decency. He steals material and when confronted he claims he is right to take the stuff, that the truth can not (sic) be owned, he even writes that to the people he steals from. He is a barefaced liar. Above you will see he has simply mangled the words I wrote to change the meaning, as if anybody is going to be taken in by such childish forgery. If you care to check which one is the illiterate buffoon trying to con money out of people just look at the two websites. Look at this page from Rippie (apparently titled Welcome to Adobe GoLive 5) http://thelastchurch.org/Mon.html in which he describes a monument, in the past tense, that he asks people to build, somewhere, some time, perhaps, by sending him money. The man is a lunatic. Here is his first description of the monument he has/will/must build: From: The Last Church > Subject: The Last Church Date: 1997/11/30 Message-ID: > X-Deja-AN: 293952000 Organization: http://www.the-last-church.org Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors The Last Church was established on the web in 1996 and on the earth in 1997. It was a place of worship for all the people who believe in god but not religion. Though it was built to resemble a bombed out building, it is a beautiful place that moves the soul of the hardest heart. NO one is allowed to preach in this place. It is for direct communication, one on one, with what ever you call God. The first one built was two hundred feet wide by five hundred feet long. Walking up to the front step, your attention was held by the huge stone blocks. They were three feet by five by three, feet. On each stone some form of truth was carved. The one That sticks in my mind is," It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, It is what comes out." The front door stood nine feet tall and six feet wide. From the entrance you saw the carvings on the inside of all the blocks, just like the outside, and in a row running the length of the otherwise empty room, you saw big boulders fifteen feet tall, by five foot wide. They were rounded and smooth with rounded benches, big enough for two people, carved in each boulder. Twelve of these were spaced out the length of the building. Sitting in these benches, with the boulder wrapping around you, your vision was restricted to a few carved blocks in front of you. The Place gave the feeling of a stone hinge, that was alive. The building had no roof covering or window glass in the two windows, on each side wall. One wall had a twenty foot hole in it that looked as if it had been blown out by a bomb. Big blocks of stone were laying around as if they had fallen from the wall. A Person could walk to the top of the wall from here, stepping from stone to stone. Once on top you can walk all the way around the building and come down at the hole again. Grass grew all around the outside while thick, white, tile covered the inside floor. At night it was lit by star and moon light=85 Under all this was a full basement with some small offices at one end. During the afternoon it was covered in children and old people. In the evening it was filled with a mixture of all ages. When it was first built the hours between twelve o=92clock and daylight found it filled wit= h the dangerous people, but six months later it was a safe place to be any time of night. It became a sanctuary for anyone in danger. The fact that anyone who did crime on this property was found dead with in a few days, made it so. People did get killed. It came to a point of who controlled the building, The Force or the dangerous people. Know one knows who killed them but, now, know one does crime on the property. The fact is crime for the whole city went down 23% after the first year TLC was built. After the second year crime was down a total of 58% for the two years. The closest they came to finding out who was doing the killing was a corpse found at a gang shoot out. His name was David Bocowske. They found his wallet but the address was false. The cops could not find where he was from or anyone who knew him. He was not a member of any known gang, but it is thought he killed all nine of the gang found with him. He was armed with a semi-auto Chinese ak47 with 30 round clips and a 45 colt auto. The Gang had raped a little girl the night before, on TLC property. The unusual thing about him was the brown munks robe he was wearing and his tattoo=92s. One tattoo on his chest that said," I am not alone! = I am one of many." And, one on his back that said," I give this life so all can live in peace." A tattoo on the back of his hand said TLC. Though lots of people were wearing the TLC tattoo, the cops still think he was connected to The Last Church. That is hard to prove because The Last Church had no congregation or services, not even a membership role. I could say he was just a lone nut but someone dressed in the same type robe has been seen walking through the church late at night, on more than one occasion. There were thirty one people killed that first year. After each killing the Christians would march up and down in front of TLC in protest. They were protesting in small numbers from the first day The Last Church was finished and the number of protesters increased after each killing. The Christians called TLC the house of the devil and any other negative they could think up. Sometimes, at night, they would drive in carloads of garbage and through it all over the white tile floor. I took pleasure in knowing every time they came to through garbage they had to read the writing on the wall. "Love thy neighbor as you do your self." And " Do unto others as you would have done unto you." And this one realy made them mad, "Jesus said not to write any books or bibles, because the written word will always be corrupted." And, "He that would be first among you, make him your slave and those that would be last, put at the head of the table." This last passage from their bible seam to say the first Baptist and the First Christian, and a whole lot of other first churches of this or that should follow The Last Church. The Christian churches did not want the people to wake up to the truth. They even took parts of their bible out so it would not be read. That=92s right, at least three or four books were dropped sense the 185= 7 bible. You would think a Christian would welcome the truth, but no, it turns out they are afraid of it. I used to tell them," If you use your bible as an Idol, (the absolute true word of God) you will never know God or the spirit of Jesus. It is not until you get above and past the bible, that the force reveals it=92s self. When TLC first opened the Christians fell on it in droves, trying to save everybody=92s soul. They were preaching in every corner of the church. When they would not stop I had them arrested and removed. I tried to explain that if they sat with one person and talked about their belief, That was not considered preaching. In fact that is the way Jesus said to spread the word, one heart to another. Jesus also said teach only two things, Love and compassion for when a person knows these the force was with them. All the rest is to be taught by deeds not words. So I ask why do preachers use so many words on Sunday? Another block of wall said," Anyone who taught the bible is the word of God fit in the category of the blind leading the blind. So now you can see what was upsetting them. They finally quit coming into the building. Preferring to hang out on the side walk. By the time the second month, after TLC=92s completion had passed, people= were coming together in groups. Cults, the Christians would call them, but they were just people who came from the same part of town and enjoyed there own understanding of the Force. Once or twice a week this or that group would come to the outside of one wall of The Last Church and sing songs for a couple of hours. They would sing a few church songs like Amazing Grace but mostly they sang any and every thing. Three of the groups were banded by Marshall arts. Tie Chi and Kung fu and a club called US. They gave lessons free to anyone that ask and there were usually one or two somewhere on the property with a class, once a day. The Last Church was doing just what it was meant to do, bring people together in positive thought. But, you know someone always wants to **** up a good thing. Two rival Gangs used it for a rumble. Is that what they call it? Anyway, two body=92s were found at daylight. On= the third day after that both gang leaders were killed and dumped on the steps of TLC. There was a note pined on both there shirts. It said," We hold this Church to be sanctuary. Anyone standing on TLC is not to be harmed in anyway. NO crime will be done on TLC property of any kind. Punishment for braking this rule is death, with out exception. So let it be written, so let it be done, so let it be fun. Signed Onward Christian solders " The next night a man was being beaten and robbed a few blocks away. He managed to get away and they chased him to the church but they stopped at the edge of the property. He was saved, his attackers wondered off into the dark. With in days stories like this were all over. More and more people came to see The Last Church. In the forth month a gang from across town called Shadow men did a drive by on the M-street, a local gang. At about 2-o=92clock the M-street was hanging around the church when the shadow men drove by. All six of the shadow men opened fire, killing two of the M-street and a young girl who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was 16 years old. Three days later six boys from the shadows were found in their car, parked in front of The Last Church, with their throats cut, vary dead. The note left on the seat said, =91Kill them all, let god sort it out. We mean business. Any crime committed on TLC property will result in the death of the perpetrators! So let it be written, so let it be done, darn right it=92s fun. Signed Onward Christian solders Two days after that The shadows main house burned down with eight men inside. All but one had been shot first. That one had been tied and burned alive. The note was on a tree outside. It said; The Shadow gang is Dead. Anyone found wearing Shadows colors and markings after this day will be dealt with. This is retaliation for the drive by shooting at The Last Church. So let it be written, so let it be done. Sighed OCS The cops were into their usual mode, arresting and threatening and abusing everyone. They circulated flyers asking if anyone knew someone with a brown munks robe. A few days after the flyer the people had a monks robe day and 600 people showed up all wearing the brown hooded monks robe. People began to put signs in their windows saying, " This house is the property of The Last Church." The Church held a fund raiser for the construction of another TLC. Over eleven thousand people came. The average donation that day was $20 for each person that came. The church got another two hundred thousand by mail over the next three weeks. That=92s one million four hundred ten thousand in one month. That money built three more churches. The Cops were sure I was the leader of some kind of secret killer group, But I was not being charged. I did nothing but build the building and clean up the trash left by the Christians. My personal moral opinion on the killing is, I think it had to be done and it was a good thing. People say, it=92s nice to know they are still out there. No= w if someone is being aggressive, like trying to rob you, you can pull out the emblem of TLC and they will go away. Finally the gang=92s started joining. The gangs became the true protectors of the people. They stopped 90% of the crime city wide. Thieves burglars and other criminals left town for safer places to do their crime. It was now safe to walk the streets=85 There are reports and details left out of this report to save space on this form. The rest of the report in detail can be found in ships log, D:/file-948.rep Star date 4651; The brown robes landed the transport ship in section 211 of the ninth blue planet and I was picked up, ending this report. Unit 304 Qusar Division That was a peep inside the sick mind of Michael Edward Rippie. Would you send him money? Would you join his Church? Would you drink his Kool-Aid? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > nemo wrote: > > Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! > > > > Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? > -- > What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't you understand? |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > ... >> nemo wrote: >>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! >>> >> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? >> -- >> > What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't you > understand? > > .. . . . . . . . . . . . You walked into that one, didn't you? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > nemo wrote: > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > > ... > >> nemo wrote: > >>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! > >>> > >> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? > >> -- > >> > > What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't you > > understand? > > You walked into that one, didn't you? Nope. You did. D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 bore who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! (ECHELON - please note this is a joke J - O - K - E so don't fly into a panic. A brick wall? yes, but a panic? no!) |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > ... >> nemo wrote: >>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> nemo wrote: >>>>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! >>>>> >>>> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? >>>> -- >>>> >>> What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't you >>> understand? >> You walked into that one, didn't you? > > Nope. You did. > > D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 bore > who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! > Do you think that was funny? I have long found that vegetarian pacifists are a lot more violent and nasty than I could ever be. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > nemo wrote: > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > > ... > >> nemo wrote: > >>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > >>> ... > >>>> nemo wrote: > >>>>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! > >>>>> > >>>> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>> What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't you > >>> understand? > >> You walked into that one, didn't you? > > > > Nope. You did. > > > > D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 bore > > who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! > > > > Do you think that was funny? > > I have long found that vegetarian pacifists are a lot more violent and > nasty than I could ever be. No you haven't. And how nasty you might be is of no concern to me. I could deal with you very easily indeed. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > ... >> nemo wrote: >>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> nemo wrote: >>>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> nemo wrote: >>>>>>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! >>>>>>> >>>>>> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" don't > you >>>>> understand? >>>> You walked into that one, didn't you? >>> Nope. You did. >>> >>> D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 > bore >>> who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! >>> >> Do you think that was funny? >> >> I have long found that vegetarian pacifists are a lot more violent and >> nasty than I could ever be. > > No you haven't. Yes I have. That is why I wrote it down. Savvy? -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"nemo" > wrote > > "Martin Willett" > wrote >> > D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 > bore >> > who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! >> > >> >> Do you think that was funny? >> >> I have long found that vegetarian pacifists are a lot more violent and >> nasty than I could ever be. > > No you haven't. And how nasty you might be is of no concern to me. I could > deal with you very easily indeed. More threats... you continue to illustrate his point. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.aliens.they-are-here
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Dutch" > wrote in message news:d9ath.789419$R63.373836@pd7urf1no... > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote > > >> > D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 > > bore > >> > who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! > >> > > >> > >> Do you think that was funny? > >> > >> I have long found that vegetarian pacifists are a lot more violent and > >> nasty than I could ever be. > > > > No you haven't. And how nasty you might be is of no concern to me. I could > > deal with you very easily indeed. > > More threats... you continue to illustrate his point. > Within the law. And I doubt if his *point* functions very well either. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
emo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > ... > > nemo wrote: > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message > > > ... > > >> nemo wrote: > > >>> Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person! > > >>> > > >> Am I confusing you by having more than one dimension? > > >> -- > > >> > > > What part of "Stop it! . . . . . . . . . . . . Silly person!" > > > don't you understand? > > > > You walked into that one, didn't you? > > Nope. You did. > > D'ya wanna continue to be able to walk? I know an ex-IRA man with a 12 > bore who's for hire and he's very good at aiming for kneecaps! Typical vegan misanthrope. No wonder the biggest threat of domestic terror is you "compassionate" loonies who think animals have rights. BTW, you're the biggest ****ing liar in these groups, Emo. That AND you're the most incompetent timekeeper in the history of the world. I've been Vegan for over 30 years... -- 21 Mar 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/25ulyl) ...over 35 years of being Vegan... -- 12 May 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2wtzt2) So you gained five years of veganism in a matter of 15 months. Bloody ****ing amazing! I went Veggie when I was about 16 and Vegan at about 20. That was 36 years ago. -- 10 Jun 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2qazf9) When I became veggie in 1962.... 35 years a Vegan... -- 8 Nov 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/33lj3v) You lost an entire year in a matter of about five months. I've been Vegan for nearly 41 years now... -- 20 Jun 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/28qfdg) So you regained six years of veganism in about three years. Or do you keep time in dog years, loathsome arsehole? Been Vegan for around 45 years!  ))))))-- 27 Dec 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/3debw7) You gained four years of veganism in six months? What a ****tard! > (ECHELON - please note this is a joke... You're inability to count -- or to tell the truth -- is the real joke, Emo. Your violent threats are another matter. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
chico wrote:
Oh, there's a lot more to this... > BTW, you're the biggest ****ing liar in these groups, Emo. That AND > you're the most incompetent timekeeper in the history of the world. > > I've been Vegan for over 30 years... > -- 21 Mar 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/25ulyl) > > ...over 35 years of being Vegan... > -- 12 May 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2wtzt2) > > So you gained five years of veganism in a matter of 15 months. Bloody > ****ing amazing! > > I went Veggie when I was about 16 and Vegan at about 20. That > was 36 years ago. > -- 10 Jun 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2qazf9) > > When I became veggie in 1962.... 35 years a Vegan... > -- 8 Nov 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/33lj3v) > > You lost an entire year in a matter of about five months. > > I've been Vegan for nearly 41 years now... > -- 20 Jun 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/28qfdg) > > So you regained six years of veganism in about three years. Or do > you keep time in dog years, loathsome arsehole? > > Been Vegan for around 45 years! ))))))> -- 27 Dec 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/3debw7) > > You gained four years of veganism in six months? What a ****tard! ...a Vegan of 37 years standing, sitting and lying down... -- 25 Jul 2005 (http://tinyurl.com/2tkh75) I've been Vegan for nearly 50 years. When I started eveyone except teh few Vegans I knew said I'd die! Actually, I'm still doing very well on it. That's no fallacy! -- 8 Jan 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/2cupsf) *Fifty* ****ing years last year, *forty-five* this year. You'd have no virtue if it weren't for the ersatz stuff you get from your veganism, no matter how long it's been in real years. ****ing liar. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Michael wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:01:55 -0500, chico > wrote: > > > loonies who think animals have rights. > > If not then you have no rights. Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have or don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is exceeded only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or cougar would just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat any other animal (if I even ate animals). Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8MSNRIG1.html > Lucky for us... Clueless psychobabble. > Animals do have rights What a load of crap. They don't have rights; they sure as hell don't respect ours. They're afforded *some* protection under our laws -- animal welfare. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Michael wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:13:31 -0500, chico > wrote: > > > Willett is spam wherever he is. > >chico wrote: > >Oh, there's a lot more to this... > > The new way to spell spam MW. The new way to spell LIAR is n-e-m-o. Why did you snip the proof of his outrageous lies about how long he's been a "vegan"? What does it say about vegan activists like "nemo" that they have to one-up everyone with wild claims about how healthy they are (he certainly isn't the picture of good health) or how long they've denied themselves nutrition on "principled" grounds? And what does it say about their principles when their sole virtue is based on outrageous delusions and lies? There's no virtue in lying, nor in avoiding animal parts. Why would you let him get away with bringing such disrepute to "veganism" by making wild-eyed claims like those you snipped? That's just about TIME he says he's been a "vegan," not about any of the other claims "vegans" make about their empty, bogus lifestyle. --------- RESTORE --------- Oh, there's a lot more to this... > BTW, you're the biggest ****ing liar in these groups, Emo. That AND > you're the most incompetent timekeeper in the history of the world. > > I've been Vegan for over 30 years... > -- 21 Mar 2002 (http://tinyurl.com/25ulyl) > > ...over 35 years of being Vegan... > -- 12 May 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2wtzt2) > > So you gained five years of veganism in a matter of 15 months. Bloody > ****ing amazing! > > I went Veggie when I was about 16 and Vegan at about 20. That > was 36 years ago. > -- 10 Jun 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2qazf9) > > When I became veggie in 1962.... 35 years a Vegan... > -- 8 Nov 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/33lj3v) > > You lost an entire year in a matter of about five months. > > I've been Vegan for nearly 41 years now... > -- 20 Jun 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/28qfdg) > > So you regained six years of veganism in about three years. Or do > you keep time in dog years, loathsome arsehole? > > Been Vegan for around 45 years! ))))))> -- 27 Dec 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/3debw7) > > You gained four years of veganism in six months? What a ****tard! ...a Vegan of 37 years standing, sitting and lying down... -- 25 Jul 2005 (http://tinyurl.com/2tkh75) I've been Vegan for nearly 50 years. When I started eveyone except teh few Vegans I knew said I'd die! Actually, I'm still doing very well on it. That's no fallacy! -- 8 Jan 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/2cupsf) *Fifty* ****ing years last year, *forty-five* this year. You'd have no virtue if it weren't for the ersatz stuff you get from your veganism, no matter how long it's been in real years. ****ing liar. --------- END RESTORE --------- Veganism is predicated on a lie: that animals aren't harmed simply because one refuses to eat even micrograms of animal parts. For some vegans, that one lie just isn't enough. That's why you have someone like the fraud "nemo" giving a *TWENTY YEAR* discrepency in his wild claims for how long he's been a "vegan" in just four years of posts -- as if long experience validates what nothing else does. The only problem is, you don't clear up one lie (i.e., animals don't die simply because you don't eat them) with more. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
chico wrote:
> Michael wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:01:55 -0500, chico > wrote: >> >>> loonies who think animals have rights. >> If not then you have no rights. > > Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have or > don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is exceeded > only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or cougar would > just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat any other animal > (if I even ate animals). > > Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: > http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8MSNRIG1.html > >> Lucky for us... > > Clueless psychobabble. > >> Animals do have rights > > What a load of crap. They don't have rights; they sure as hell don't > respect ours. They're afforded *some* protection under our laws -- > animal welfare. “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy Bentham Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals in their business dealings don't loose out to those who shamelessly abuse them. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
chico wrote:
> Michael wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:01:55 -0500, chico > wrote: >> >>> loonies who think animals have rights. >> If not then you have no rights. > > Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have or > don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is exceeded > only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or cougar would > just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat any other animal > (if I even ate animals). > > Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: > http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8MSNRIG1.html > >> Lucky for us... > > Clueless psychobabble. > >> Animals do have rights > > What a load of crap. They don't have rights; they sure as hell don't > respect ours. They're afforded *some* protection under our laws -- > animal welfare. “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy Bentham Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals in their business dealings don't lose out to those who shamelessly abuse them. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Martin wrote:
> chico wrote: > > Michael wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:01:55 -0500, chico > wrote: > >> > >>> loonies who think animals have rights. > >> If not then you have no rights. > > > > Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have > > or don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is > > exceeded only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or > > cougar would just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat > > any other animal (if I even ate animals). > > > > Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: > > http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8MSNRIG1.html > > > >> Lucky for us... > > > > Clueless psychobabble. > > > >> Animals do have rights > > > > What a load of crap. They don't have rights; they sure as hell don't > > respect ours. They're afforded *some* protection under our laws -- > > animal welfare. > > “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but > from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by > poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, > come imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy > Bentham > > Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, > laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our > consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals > in their business dealings don't loose out to those who shamelessly > abuse them. "Shamlessly abuse them..." You mean like the PETA ****s standing trial in North Carolina for killing dogs and cats. http://tinyurl.com/22rzcj Too many to handle, so they wantonly killed and dumped them. These are the same type who often violently harass people who wear leather and fur or who choose to eat at KFC. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
chico wrote:
> Martin wrote: > >> chico wrote: >>> Michael wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:01:55 -0500, chico > wrote: >>>> >>>>> loonies who think animals have rights. >>>> If not then you have no rights. >>> Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have >>> or don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is >>> exceeded only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or >>> cougar would just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat >>> any other animal (if I even ate animals). >>> >>> Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: >>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8MSNRIG1.html >>> >>>> Lucky for us... >>> Clueless psychobabble. >>> >>>> Animals do have rights >>> What a load of crap. They don't have rights; they sure as hell don't >>> respect ours. They're afforded *some* protection under our laws -- >>> animal welfare. >> “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but >> from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by >> poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, >> come imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy >> Bentham >> >> Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, >> laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our >> consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals >> in their business dealings don't loose out to those who shamelessly >> abuse them. > > "Shamlessly abuse them..." You mean like the PETA ****s standing trial > in North Carolina for killing dogs and cats. > http://tinyurl.com/22rzcj > > Too many to handle, so they wantonly killed and dumped them. These > are the same type who often violently harass people who wear leather and > fur or who choose to eat at KFC. I meant the small minority of farmers who abuse their animals and have no empathy for them. They should be put out of business by animal welfare laws. The vast majority of people involved in the meat industry are decent people, not heartless monsters. Laws should be used to get rid of those who bring farming and food production into disrepute. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Michael wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:51:06 -0600, chico > wrote: > > >Non sequitur. My rights aren't predicated on what other animals have > >or don't have. Indeed, my refusal to respect their "rights" is > >exceeded only by their refusal to respect mine. A lion or tiger or > >cougar would just as soon kill and eat me as I would kill and eat any > >other animal (if I even ate animals). > > > >Cougars certainly don't respect the rights of elderly hikers: > > What animals do... Is evidence that they operate on instincts and not within any framework in which "rights" is a rational concept. Animals operate on might, not rights. > has no bearing on its natural right to do the > things nature gave it. Nature gave the beast its base instincts; society and reason have given man the framework of rights. Animals operate on instincts and might, not on rights. Civilized man operates in a framework that represses might and respects rights. > In a case where food could not be had any other way I would > kill and eat you. That presumes you're physically and/or mentally superior enough to do that. You're neither. > That is the nature of men. No, the nature of Western man is to abhor eating the flesh of one's own species. It is also the nature of Western man and civilized societies to respect a framework of rights that protects even (or especially) the weak from the strong. That's fundamentally contrary to the law of "nature" -- the law of the jungle -- in which territory, mating, and food "rights" are established almost entirely by might and domination. > I also have the right > to rise above those standards and recognize all animals have rights. Animals don't have rights, regardless of your silly psychobabble about the issue. We in civilized societies protect them under the law, just as we protect those humans who cannot responsibly exercise their own rights because of age (minors don't have rights, they have protection under law), the infirm and severely handicapped (who have others exercise their rights for them via powers of attorney, etc.), and so on. They don't have rights in nature or in society, but it's society that's willing to afford them protection. > Until I get hungry. In which you would operate under the law of the jungle -- might over right -- as opposed to the law of civil society. Nature doesn't operate within a system of rights, civil society does. The flawed notion that animals deserve rights is an entirely modern development driven primarily by urbanites with too much time on their hands who are so removed from nature that they don't understand the differences between society and nature and thereby confuse both. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from > imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, > rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come > imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy Bentham > > Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, > laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our > consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals > in their business dealings don't lose out to those who shamelessly > abuse them. 'Jeremy Bentham (IPA: ['ben??m] or ['bent?m]) (February 15, 1748 O.S. (February 26, 1748 N.S.) – June 6, 1832) was an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He was a political radical and a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law. He is best known as an early advocate of utilitarianism and animal rights [1][2] who influenced the development of liberalism. .... Bentham is widely recognised as one of the earliest proponents of animal rights. He argued that animal pain is very similar to human pain, and that "[t]he day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." [8] Bentham argued that the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, must be the benchmark of how we treat other beings. If the ability to reason were the criterion, many human beings, including babies and disabled people, would also have to be treated as though they were things. He wrote: It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes .... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> "nature" -- the law of the jungle -- in which territory, mating, and > food "rights" are established almost entirely by might and domination. 'No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture By NATALIE ANGIER Published: April 13, 2004 Sometimes it takes the great Dustbuster of fate to clear the room of bullies and bad habits. Freak cyclones helped destroy Kublai Khan's brutal Mongolian empire, for example, while the Black Death of the 14th century capsized the medieval theocracy and gave the Renaissance a chance to shine. Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate. In a study appearing today in the journal PloS Biology (online at www.plosbiology.org), researchers describe the drastic temperamental and tonal shift that occurred in a troop of 62 baboons when its most belligerent members vanished from the scene. The victims were all dominant adult males that had been strong and snarly enough to fight with a neighboring baboon troop over the spoils at a tourist lodge garbage dump, and were exposed there to meat tainted with bovine tuberculosis, which soon killed them. Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit. Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe. "We don't yet understand the mechanism of transmittal," said Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, "but the jerky new guys are obviously learning, `We don't do things like that around here.'" Dr. Sapolsky wrote the report with his colleague and wife, Dr. Lisa J. Share. Dr. Sapolsky, who is renowned for his study of the physiology of stress, said that the Forest Troop baboons probably felt as good as they acted. Hormone samples from the monkeys showed far less evidence of stress in even the lowest-ranking individuals, when contrasted with baboons living in more rancorous societies. The researchers were able to compare the behavior and physiology of the contemporary Forest Troop primates to two control groups: a similar-size baboon congregation living nearby, called the Talek Troop, and the Forest Troop itself from 1979 through 1982, the era that might be called Before Alpha Die-off, or B.A.D. "It's a really fine, thorough piece of work, with the sort of methodology and lucky data sets that you can only get from doing long-term field research," said Dr. Duane Quiatt, a primatologist at the University of Colorado at Denver and a co-author with Vernon Reynolds of the 1993 book "Primate Behaviour: Information, Social Knowledge and the Evolution of Culture." The new work vividly demonstrates that, Putumayo records notwithstanding, humans hold no patent on multiculturalism. As a growing body of research indicates, many social animals learn from one another and cultivate regional variants in skills, conventions and fashions. Some chimpanzees crack open their nuts with a stone hammer on a stone anvil; others prefer wood hammers on wood anvils. The chimpanzees of the Tai forest rain-dance; those of the Gombe tickle themselves. Dr. Jane Goodall reported a fad in one chimpanzee group: a young female started wiggling her hands, and before long, every teen chimp was doing likewise. (Page 2 of 2) But in the baboon study, the culture being conveyed is less a specific behavior or skill than a global code of conduct. "You can more accurately describe it as the social ethos of group," said Dr. Andrew Whiten, a professor of evolutionary and developmental psychology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who has studied chimpanzee culture. "It's an attitude that's being transmitted." The report also offers real-world proof of a principle first demonstrated in captive populations of monkeys: that with the right upbringing, diplomacy is infectious. Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal, the director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, has shown that if the normally pugilistic rhesus monkeys are reared with the more conciliatory stumptailed monkeys, the rhesus monkeys learn the value of tolerance, peacemaking and mutual hip-hugging. Dr. de Waal, who wrote an essay to accompany the new baboon study, said in a telephone interview, "The good news for humans is that it looks like peaceful conditions, once established, can be maintained," he said. "And if baboons can do it," he said, "why not us? The bad news is that you might have to first knock out all the most aggressive males to get there." Jerkiness or worse certainly seems to be a job description for ordinary male baboons. The average young male, after wheedling his way into a new troop at around age 7, spends his prime years seeking to fang his way up the hierarchy; and once he's gained some status, he devotes many a leisure hour to whimsical displays of power at scant personal cost. He harasses and attacks females, which weigh half his hundred pounds and lack his thumb-thick canines, or he terrorizes the low-ranking males he knows cannot retaliate. Dr. Barbara Smuts, a primatologist at the University of Michigan who wrote the 1985 book "Sex and Friendship in Baboons," said that the females in the troop she studied received a serious bite from a male annually, maybe losing a strip of flesh or part of an ear in the process. As they age and lose their strength, however, males may calm down and adopt a new approach to group living, affiliating with females so devotedly that they keep their reproductive opportunities going even as their ranking in the male hierarchy plunges. For their part, female baboons, which live up to 25 years - compared with the male's 18 - inherit their rank in the gynocracy from their mothers and so spend less time fighting for dominance. They do, however, readily battle females from outside the fold, for they, not the males, are the keepers of turf and dynasty. The new-fashioned Forest Troop is no United Nations, or even the average frat house. Its citizens remain highly aggressive and argumentative, and the males still obsess over hierarchy. "We're talking about baboons here," said Dr. Sapolsky. What most distinguishes this congregation from others is that the males resist taking out their bad moods on females and underlings. When a dominant male wants to pick a fight, he finds someone his own size and rank. As a result, a greater percentage of male-male conflicts in the Forest Troop occur between closely ranked individuals than is seen in the control populations, where the bullies seek easier pickings. Moreover, Forest Troop males of all ranks spend more time grooming and being groomed, and just generally huddling close to troop mates, than do their counterpart males in the study. Interestingly, the male faces in the Forest Troop may have changed over time, but the relative numbers have not. Ever since the tuberculosis epidemic killed half the adult males, the ratio has remained skewed, with twice as many females as males. Yet the researchers have demonstrated that the troop's sexual complexion alone cannot explain its character. Examining other troops with a similar preponderance of females, the Stanford scientists saw no evidence of the Forest Troop's relative amity. Dr. Sapolsky has no idea how long the good times will last. "I confess I'm rooting for the troop to stay like this forever, but I worry about how vulnerable they may be," he said. "All it would take is two or three jerky adolescent males entering at the same time to tilt the balance and destroy the culture." http://tinyurl.com/3hn4m |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" > wrote: > > > "nature" -- the law of the jungle -- in which territory, mating, and > > food "rights" are established almost entirely by might and > > domination. > > 'No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture What do you not comprehend by the intentional qualification: "ALMOST ENTIRELY by might and domination"? The account in the article you demonstrates that it's anomalous for animal groups to be NOT marked by a dominance hierarchy of one or more alpha (generally males). Operative parts: > Dr. Sapolsky, who is renowned for his study of the physiology of > stress, said that the Forest Troop baboons probably felt as good as > they acted. Hormone samples from the monkeys showed far less evidence > of stress in even the lowest-ranking individuals, when contrasted with > baboons living in more rancorous societies. > > Jerkiness or worse certainly seems to be a job description for > *ordinary* male baboons. The average young male, after wheedling his > way into a new troop at around age 7, spends his prime years seeking > to fang his way up the hierarchy; and once he's gained some status, he > devotes many a leisure hour to whimsical displays of power at scant > personal cost. He harasses and attacks females, which weigh half his > hundred pounds and lack his thumb-thick canines, or he terrorizes the > low-ranking males he knows cannot retaliate. > > Dr. Barbara Smuts, a primatologist at the University of Michigan who > wrote the 1985 book "Sex and Friendship in Baboons," said that the > females in the troop she studied received a serious bite from a male > annually, Bit more often than anually among skinheads, eh? > maybe losing a strip of flesh or part of an ear in the > process. As they age and lose their strength, however, males may calm > down and adopt a new approach to group living, affiliating with > females so devotedly that they keep their reproductive opportunities > going even as their ranking in the male hierarchy plunges. > > For their part, female baboons, which live up to 25 years - compared > with the male's 18 - inherit their rank in the gynocracy from their > mothers and so spend less time fighting for dominance. They do, > however, readily battle females from outside the fold, for they, not > the males, are the keepers of turf and dynasty. > > The new-fashioned Forest Troop is no United Nations, or even the > average frat house. Its citizens remain highly aggressive and > argumentative, and the males still obsess over hierarchy. "We're > talking about baboons here," said Dr. Sapolsky. Aggressive, hierarchy. Exactly. Baboons are no different than the violent skinheads you find so attractive. > What most distinguishes this congregation from others is that the > males resist taking out their bad moods on females and underlings. Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." Etc. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... >> “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from >> imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, >> rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come >> imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy Bentham >> >> Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, >> laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our >> consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals >> in their business dealings don't lose out to those who shamelessly >> abuse them. > > 'Jeremy Bentham (IPA: ['ben??m] or ['bent?m]) (February 15, 1748 > O.S. (February 26, 1748 N.S.) – June 6, 1832) was an English jurist, > philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He was a political radical > and a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law. He is > best known as an early advocate of utilitarianism and animal rights > [1][2] who influenced the development of liberalism. > ... > Bentham is widely recognised as one of the earliest proponents of > animal rights. He argued that animal pain is very similar to human > pain, and that "[t]he day may come when the rest of the animal > creation may acquire those rights which never could have been > witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." [8] Bentham > argued that the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, must > be the benchmark of how we treat other beings. If the ability to > reason were the criterion, many human beings, including babies > and disabled people, would also have to be treated as though > they were things. He wrote: > > It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the > legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum > are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being > to the same fate. > > What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the > faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a > full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, > as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or > a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, > what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor > Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse > its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when > humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes > ... [8] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham > > Animals and people don't have rights until they are given them by law. Bentham was rightly calling for laws to recognize the potential of animals to suffer and therefore bringing in laws to grant protection to animals. Calling that a call for "animal rights" when he was a staunch opponent of the entire concept of natural rights is disingenuous. It would be much more appropriate to say he was in favour of legal protection of animals from cruelty. "He argued in favour of individual and economic freedom, including the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, animal rights, the end of slavery, the abolition of physical punishment (including that of children), the right to divorce, free trade, and in defence of usury and homosexuality. He supported inheritance tax, restrictions on monopoly power, pensions, and health insurance." In his day he was a radical. Today he could get a front bench post in any of the big three British political parties in the snap of his fingers. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > "chico" > wrote: > > > > > "nature" -- the law of the jungle -- in which territory, mating, and > > > food "rights" are established almost entirely by might and > > > domination. > > > > 'No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture > > What do you not comprehend Thanks for the demonstration. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." That is a lie. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ... > > >> “Right...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from > >> imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, > >> rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come > >> imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” - Jeremy Bentham > >> > >> Animal rights are a nonsense. It is laws that give animals protection, > >> laws we choose to enact to offer animals protection, to soothe our > >> consciences and to ensure that people who respect and care for animals > >> in their business dealings don't lose out to those who shamelessly > >> abuse them. > > > > 'Jeremy Bentham (IPA: ['ben??m] or ['bent?m]) (February 15, 1748 > > O.S. (February 26, 1748 N.S.) – June 6, 1832) was an English jurist, > > philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He was a political radical > > and a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law. He is > > best known as an early advocate of utilitarianism and animal rights > > [1][2] who influenced the development of liberalism. > > ... > > Bentham is widely recognised as one of the earliest proponents of > > animal rights. He argued that animal pain is very similar to human > > pain, and that "[t]he day may come when the rest of the animal > > creation may acquire those rights which never could have been > > witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." [8] Bentham > > argued that the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, must > > be the benchmark of how we treat other beings. If the ability to > > reason were the criterion, many human beings, including babies > > and disabled people, would also have to be treated as though > > they were things. He wrote: > > > > It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the > > legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum > > are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being > > to the same fate. > > > > What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the > > faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a > > full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, > > as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or > > a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, > > what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor > > Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse > > its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when > > humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes > > ... [8] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham > > > > > > Animals and people don't have rights until they are given them by law. Whose law? ".. from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a ******* brood of monsters.” Let's face it - all that talk of "the law of the jungle", might and dominion, etc, but.. apart from carnivores doing what they must do, and are naturally adapted to do, to survive, (and those uppity primates) - all that talk of 'civilisation', but it is humans who dominate, and support that with their 'law' (tyranny). > Bentham was rightly calling for laws to recognize the potential of > animals to suffer We recognize that they, being sensitive beings, can suffer too. We can see that they seek to live, in freedom and contentment. A natural law: Life, in whatever form it takes, seeks to protect itself and its kind from threats to its survival and well-being. Who are we to hold others captive, inflict suffering, and kill? > and therefore bringing in laws to grant protection to animals. How do you define the terms 'protection', 'care' and 'respect'? > Calling that a call for "animal rights" when he was a staunch > opponent of the entire concept of natural rights No. .."from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, ..".. not from real natural laws (and rights). > is disingenuous. It > would be much more appropriate to say he was in favour of legal > protection of animals from cruelty. From suffering. And that can be experienced in many ways. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" wrote: Shorten your "reply to" setting (remove the message tag) so it fits on one line, you retarded ****. > > pearl wrote: > > > > > "chico" > wrote: > > > > > > > "nature" -- the law of the jungle -- in which territory, mating, > > > > and food "rights" are established almost entirely by might and > > > > domination. > > > > > > 'No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture > > > > What do you not comprehend by the intentional qualification: "ALMOST > > ENTIRELY by might and domination"? The account in the article you > > demonstrates that it's anomalous for animal groups to be NOT marked > > by a dominance hierarchy of one or more alpha (generally males). > > Thanks No problem. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" wrote: > > > Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." > > That is a lie. Liar. To which part of that do you take exception? |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" > wrote in message > ... > > > Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." > > That is a lie. No, and neither was the part about your sexual attraction to violent skinheads you snipped. You even married one. And he left you for strippers. He found them much more intellectually stimulating than what he had in that tumble-down shack surrounded by furry creatures he wanted to beat and a crazy bitch in a tinfoil hat. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > "chico" wrote: > > > > > Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." > > > > That is a lie. > > Liar. Liar. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > "chico" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." > > > > That is a lie. > > No, Yes. I'd pity you, but you richly deserve the hell you inhabit. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > "chico" wrote: > > Shorten FOAD. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" > wrote in message > ... Adjust your reply settings, dummy. > > pearl wrote: > > > > > "chico" wrote: > > > > > > > Unlike the pack of violent skinheads you routinely "service." > > > > > > That is a lie. > > > > Liar. > > Liar. Nope, and neither was the part about your sexual attraction to violent skinheads you snipped. You even married one. And he left you for strippers. He found them much more intellectually stimulating than what he had in that tumble-down shack surrounded by furry creatures he wanted to beat and a crazy bitch in a tinfoil hat. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"chico" > wrote in message ...
> Adjust Adjust your personality if you can, low-life liar. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
pearl wrote:
> "chico" > wrote in message > ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adjust the settings in your POS mail/news agent, dummy. > > Adjust > > Adjust Adjust the settings in your POS mail/news agent, dummy. Why are you still using the default build of OE that came with Win98? Retard. |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
Can you really see a difference between "laws of nature" which Bentham
is against, and "Real natural laws (and rights)"? The quote clearly shows that he thinks the entire concept of laws of nature a.k.a. natural laws is wrong-headed, that no such things exist until laws are created. Laws create rights, they don't reveal them. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/ |
|
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to avoid being eaten by aliens
"Martin Willett" > wrote > Can you really see a difference between "laws of nature" which Bentham is > against, and "Real natural laws (and rights)"? > > The quote clearly shows that he thinks the entire concept of laws of > nature a.k.a. natural laws is wrong-headed, that no such things exist > until laws are created. Laws create rights, they don't reveal them. I think this is somewhat simplistic. Yes there are "legal rights" which only exist based on laws, but before thare are laws there are principles like fairness or 'natural justice' which cause us to see for example that the brutal murder of a child is wrong, or the subjugation and exploitation of women. In my view this sense of natural justice evolves from our nature as highly intelligent, empathic social animals. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Aliens and food | General Cooking | |||
| Cooking aliens | Barbecue | |||
| Texans Meet The Aliens | General Cooking | |||
| wanna see Aliens on Earth | General Cooking | |||
| Kolbeh: A Persian Restaurant to avoid in Seattle unless you like bad service, indifferent managment, wrong orders, and not getting your half eaten food back in a doggy bag to save money and have lunch the next day | Restaurants | |||
Linear Mode
