 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Facts we should *not* consider.
tortured trix wrote:
> Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use > to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America: You blooming idiot. Nobody has been censored in America. Responding to the critics and their hysteria is NOT censorship, it's free speech. > that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or > somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned > right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc. That fat slob chose to politicize an awards show. He's had, and still has, forums open to rant and rave as he's wont to do. Suggesting that his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's about good taste. As far as whether or not he earned an Oscar for his deceitful mockumentary, I'll leave it to the Academy. I didn't see it, and I probably won't. > I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers > and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war > (to free people and animals). Our self-preservation was also a very good reason for war. We also happened to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal thug dictator. According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy. > But many of the so-called > pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE > about which wars they wish to support or criticize. You've no concept of our laws if you think that. We don't hold elections just to allow ninnies to pontificate their opposition to war. You were, and remain, free to oppose any facet of our government you want. Your opportunity to support or oppose those facets occurs every two years for the House of Representatives, four years for President, and six years for Senate. > These are the right-winger extremists. Non sequitur. Leftist administrations have entangled us in more wars, to which even leftists objected, than "right-wingers." That doesn't make them extremists, it only tells us they operate on standards that rise above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to action in Iraq. The President still enjoys the support of the majority of Americans despite all the negative press and vilification from prats like you. > I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between > a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". <snipped below> The two aren't necessarily the same. You're not very bright, are you. > However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned: > fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another Some of us would argue that is NOT an abstract purpose. It's quite concrete. Ask Saddam and his dead boys. > -- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level > of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is > being given more right or access to property and resources than another. > So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights. Property and resources are human rights, but the taking of them by force may be a violation of said rights. How is that fighting for rights? Consider Saddam's rise to power and his use of the military to control resources and subjugate the population. The result was a loss of rights, even though soldiers were being used for Saddam's evil purposes. Contrast that to selfless allied actions which deposed Saddam and are now restoring human rights. It's like a knife: a deadly tool in the wrong hands, but able to give life in the hands of a surgeon. You really lack a clear grasp of the issue. > To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we > replace the word "human" with "animal". Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. It is a peculiar concept which is of recent origin. Its popularity may be increasing, albeit marginally, but only because of the urbanization of our species. >>How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order >>to have will, an animal must exist first. > > It is called BREEDING. Look into it. No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist fertilization? While you're at it, please explain what an animal's will is and how you know animals have wills. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >swamp wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball >> > wrote: >> >> >>>swamp wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >>>>Go Sox! >>> >>>Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run. >> >> >> Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the >> Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't >> both lose. > >I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA >who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says >that he roots for injuries. I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite understood them. Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite team is whoever's playing Notre Dame. And I like a good hit as much as anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just kids playin' ball... >As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and >Miamians wanted to see. They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be lucky to outdraw the History channel. >Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the >business of the sport enough to know much about how >teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is >well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know >that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the >Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times >writing that this Florida team was built more in the >good old fashioned way: player development and >"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings. More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes, but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them. >As I also said before, I'd root for the national team >from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the >Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders >in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in >hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team >I hated that much. You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach, elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge? I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined. --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
swamp wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>swamp wrote: >> >>>Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the >>>Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't >>>both lose. >> >>I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA >>who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says >>that he roots for injuries. > > > I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite > understood them. They hate USC, and no one likes ND. > Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so > naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so > I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite > team is whoever's playing Notre Dame. That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC. I did two years at community college, then completed undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s connections school: where young white men went to get into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate development or accounting, and women went to meet the budding real estate developer or accountant to get married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk. USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it still does not match UCLA academically. > And I like a good hit as much as > anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just > kids playin' ball... My friend was only expressing his disgust for both schools, not truly rooting for injuries. > > >>As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and >>Miamians wanted to see. > > > They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be > lucky to outdraw the History channel. > > >>Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the >>business of the sport enough to know much about how >>teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is >>well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know >>that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the >>Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times >>writing that this Florida team was built more in the >>good old fashioned way: player development and >>"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings. > > > More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes, > but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them. > > >>As I also said before, I'd root for the national team > >>from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the > >>Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders >>in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in >>hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team >>I hated that much. > > > You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach, > elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge? I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing happened to him. It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics. The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly. > > I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match > my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie > stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World > Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the > Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined. I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of a secondary Giants fan, although I can't stand Bonds. I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect > wrote in message news:<qITjb.36161
> his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's Yes it is. It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever the hell he wanted. It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want to air. If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel. Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people complained about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in situations which THEY did not ask for. You would defend every action of promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse animal rights people of trying to "censor" you. Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced stop? There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment" in doing that. Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store. You are just jealous because his books are so popular. > According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain > in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy. What polls? You may be true, and I hope you are, but it is ridiculously naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country struggling to build itself out of the ruins of a war. > above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that > you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to > action in Iraq. That is false, at best. Polls are not scientific, because they do not answer the questions people wish to ask. You are SO hung up on opinion polls, like they mean ANYthing. And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the correctness of one's argument. I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military action against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most notably, Peru) and elsewhere. I would be all for war if it meant freeing billions of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other countries! But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly against the violence on one side. > Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. That is just YOUR opinion. Many humans believe they DO have rights. > No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the > breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist > fertilization? Non-sequitur. I never said animals have a will before, or even after, fertilization. HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the animals. You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming the child if the child shoots themself. After all, YOU did not choose to make the child shoot themself. But, would you argue that children have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Cash Cow > wrote in message news:<V7Ejb.3147
> The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see > through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to > "promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the > quality of life. Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole! I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian. Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed and who suffer. They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major tenets of debunking -- an irrational form of discourse. The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama", is NO exaggeration with his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups. Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"<>" <> wrote in message > >Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless
> >****drip. <snip> Nice ASCII artwork, <> ! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all, pointy brackets! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote
> being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed and who suffer. You assume that, you keep saying it, let's see some proof. > They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough > times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major > tenets of > debunking -- an irrational form of discourse. Quite so, that's what you're doing. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote
> "<>" <> wrote in message > >Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless > > >****drip. > > <snip> Nice ASCII artwork, <> It's plagarized. ! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all, > pointy brackets! You've been agreeing with him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote
> I never said animals have a will. Yes you did. Don't you remember this? "No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice" for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their whole lives." You think animals are born "against their will". Everything you say is loaded, irrational emotion, not reason. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect > wrote in message news
> you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to > action in Iraq. Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq. So, the majority of which select part of the population do you want to talk about? I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world, would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right. (It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in Iraq may be right for other reasons.) The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion of THOSE AFFECTED MOST. For example, if you want to support the War in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over Saddam Hussein himself and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the reality that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact. In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL majority. I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did anything to acquire the knowledge, etc. What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
exploratory wrote:
> Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq. > So, the majority of which select part of the population do > you want to talk about? I have trouble believing that the majority of people in the world even care if there is an Iraq, much less if there is a war there. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:52:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >swamp wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball >> > wrote: >> >> >>>swamp wrote: >>> > >>>>Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the >>>>Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't >>>>both lose. >>> >>>I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA >>>who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says >>>that he roots for injuries. >> >> >> I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite >> understood them. > >They hate USC, and no one likes ND. Except NBC. >> Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so >> naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so >> I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite >> team is whoever's playing Notre Dame. > >That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC. > >I did two years at community college, then completed >undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was >badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s >connections school: where young white men went to get >into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate >development or accounting, and women went to meet the >budding real estate developer or accountant to get >married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I >was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent >school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk. > USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it >still does not match UCLA academically. At the risk of conspiracy accusations, I see nothing wrong w/ attending CCs or SC. A close friend did exactly that. I wanted to go to Cal, but didn't quite meet its requirements out of high school. Didn't want to go to SC back then, but its academic standing has definitely moved up since. Longer ago than I'd care to admit. >> And I like a good hit as much as >> anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just >> kids playin' ball... > >My friend was only expressing his disgust for both >schools, not truly rooting for injuries. Yeah, I know some UCLA grads... Not too sure about them when SC's playing... Hope you're right. [snip] >> You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach, >> elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge? > >I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I >hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated >that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale >practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing >happened to him. I'm guessing I'm more of a sports fan than you are, but am equally opposed to AR. I can provide decent suggestions on veggie chili recipes in compensation >It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for >Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics. >The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly. To each his own. I hate the Celtics. Pistons... indifferent. >> I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match >> my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie >> stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World >> Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the >> Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined. > >I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of >a secondary Giants fan, God save your soul...  >....although I can't stand Bonds. >I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach >retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola. I don't like the Braves for the same "America's team" reason. Guess I hold grudges longer than you. Fish won tonite. Anything's better than the evil empire. --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote
> What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, > suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self.. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
rectal suppository wrote:
>>his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's > > Yes it is. No, it wasn't censorship. He made his remarks. Nobody bleeped his words, nobody stopped him from saying them. The fact that others remarked about and/or criticized his hate-speech is NOT censorship. It, too, is free speech, even when others suggest he should have chosen a more appropriate forum for his tirade. > It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever > the hell he wanted. He did, didn't he? > It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want > to air. They did. Members of the Academy, for the most part, apparently did not care for his out-of-bounds remarks. They booed Moore. > If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel. I don't watch much television, and I certainly don't care to watch the wretched excesses of Hollywood types awarding each other. I heard the remarks on news channels -- further evidence that the fat shit's statements were NOT censored by given far more air play than they deserved. You are a ****ing idiot if you consider THAT censorship. > Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people > complained > about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in > situations which THEY did not ask for. You're the one bordering on calls of censorship. Meat advertisements aren't exactlt free speech, though: advertising costs money. > You would defend every action of > promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse > animal rights people of trying to "censor" you. No, see above. You have no clue about what censorship is, much less free speech. Nobody said the fat shithead couldn't say what he did, they only suggested he do it in a more appropriate venue. While Hollywood has been particularly partisan in the past, most people have been civil during awards shows. That was the point of the people -- who probably agreed with the fat turd more than they disagreed with him -- who booed. > Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus > deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced > stop? You don't have to take a bus. I don't know what Greyhound's policies are, but I bet that's an issue between Greyhound and their drivers. If you don't want anything from McD's, stay on the bus. It's not that difficult, you prat. > There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment" > in doing that. Irrelevant. You're free to complain to Greyhound if it really bothers you (though I find it awfully petty of you to whine about it). > Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus > stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store. I don't know if I would since I'm a vegetarian. > You are just jealous because his books are so popular. I'm not jealous. He preaches to a small but frenzied choir. >>According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain >>in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy. > > What polls? Gallup, you dolt. Baghdad residents support US presence for now - poll 14/10/2003 - 06:58:51 More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see US troops stay longer than a few more months, but many still have sharply mixed feelings about their presence troops, a poll says. The Gallup poll found that 71% of the Iraqi capitals residents felt US troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26% felt the troops should leave that soon. http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...220&p=6798y8xx > You may be true, I am. > and I hope you are, Liar. > but it is ridiculously > naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country > struggling to build itself out of the ruins of a war. No, it isn't naive. Science can and does happen in the strangest places. >>above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that >>you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to >>action in Iraq. > > That is false, at best. It's true whether you like it or not. > Polls are not scientific, You obviously do not understand polling. > because they do not answer > the questions people wish to ask. Polls *may* be skewed by the way questions are asked, but even poorly done polls can gauge public sentiment. In the case of the polling done by every news organization in the US prior to war with Iraq, every poll showed widespread support for taking action regardless of which pollsters (Gallup, Harris, Pew, Quinnipiac College, et al) asked questions. > You are SO hung up on opinion > polls, like they mean ANYthing. I'm not hung up on polls. I pointed out something that goes against what you said previously. Stop shooting the messenger, you fudgepacker. > And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the > correctness of one's argument. I didn't say it did. Take a look at my defense of minority rights in a democracy in my exchanges with "Jane" in the "it's too easy" thread. > I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military > action > against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most > notably, > Peru) and elsewhere. Try writing your congressman and senators. Only Congerss can authorize such military actions. > I would be all for war if it meant freeing billions > of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other > countries! Yes, you sure do have your priorities straight, misanthrope. > But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly > against the violence on one side. No, I would oppose a war for liberation of other species because it would be a complete waste of valuable resources. I don't "preach" anything -- I believe terrorism by ARAs is wrong. >>Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. > > That is just YOUR opinion. Legally, it is a fact. > Many humans believe they DO have rights. Appeal to popularity. Some people believed David Koresh would rise from the dead. He hasn't. What people some believe doesn't make it so. >>No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the >>breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist >>fertilization? > > Non-sequitur. Sequitur. The OP asked a question and your answer evaded it. > I never said animals have a will before, or even after, > fertilization. The OP responded to you with: How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order to have will, an animal must exist first. Your response evaded the issue and suggested he look into breeding. > HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose > to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the > animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the > animals. Yes, we do that to fulfill a demand. FWIW, male and female animals often get together without man's interaction, knowing full well that they will **** and have offspring. That is one of the three drives of animals: mating, defense of territory, food. > You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming > the child if the child shoots themself. Non sequitur. > After all, YOU did not choose to make the child shoot themself. HIMself. Singular. Still non sequitur. > But, would you argue that children > have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of > deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)? Correct, I believe children don't have rights. Minors and others deemed incompetent, like the retarded or infirm, are afforded protections under the law. Rights assume a measure of responsibility, and the law respects the fact that most minors are not yet responsible. It's a legal distinction, but a very valid one even under our current legal system (attacks on this distinction have occurred in recent years, but the principle remains). Your analogy, though, remains non sequitur. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
rectal suppository wrote:
>>The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see >>through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to >>"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the >>quality of life. > > Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole! > > I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect > and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian. What have I written that is insanity? > Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny > that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed > and who suffer. A vegetarian diet only ensures animals may not be *eaten*, not that they will not be killed collaterally. Grain planting and harvesting are particularly lethal for animals. See the first pic on the page linked below. Add to that the use of pesticides, which are used even in organic farming, transportation, etc., no food is free of animal deaths or suffering. http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm > They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough > times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major > tenets of debunking -- an irrational form of discourse. Such tautology is the practice of people like you, who assume that because meat is not *eaten* that animals are not killed. You forget the fact that animals range in farmland, and farmland is harvested using machinery. You must count the animals who get run over by combines, flooded by irrigation, or killed by pesticides in your assessments of suffering and death. You choose not to do this, and instead repeat your proclamations that because you do not *eat* animals that you are morally responsible for preventing harm to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Eating venison causes the death of one deer. How many were run over, like the fawn in the pic, harvesting your wheat, rice, or corn? *That* is the issue. Deal with it. > The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama", > is NO exaggeration with > his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups. Funny that you would presume to take the high road in this debate and then allude to cartoon characters. Running out of ammo? > Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat. I've never seen this show to which you allude (only promos), so I can only make my a priori assessments about your watching cartoons. How old are you, anyway? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
rectal suppository wrote:
>>you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to >>action in Iraq. > > Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq. Wrong, and goal post move. Polling showed the world was evenly split on the war. The world exists of more than the UN Security Council nations, and more than Islamic nations. You forget that we had over forty nations supporting us in the build up to war. More are now coming on board. Even our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing. I was addressing the United States population. If you disagree that a majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts. > So, the majority of which select part of the population do > you want to talk about? > > I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world, > would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates > to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right. Non sequitur. How many bong hits did you have before you wrote this irrelevant drivel? > (It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in > Iraq may be right for other reasons.) Plenty of reasons. > The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion > of THOSE AFFECTED MOST. This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on full display. > For example, if you want to support the War > in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the > victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over > Saddam Hussein himself > and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the > reality > that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact. Hey, idiot, what choice did they have? Was there ever another name on the ballot? Some ****ing choice, huh. > In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals > tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL > majority. Animals are neither tortured nor murdered. Murder is a crime with a specific legal definition. I know you don't care about specific definitions in your rush to condemn others, but you're not sincere; you are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic processes among their own species, much less in ours. Your point is laughably non sequitur and irrelevant. > I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority > who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did > anything to acquire the knowledge, etc. I know. As I just wrote, you are an ideologue. You don't care about the truth, especially since it is at odds with your agenda. > What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, > suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists. Review the list of articles in my previous replies to you. Suffering and dying for causes is beside the point: the terrorists on 9/11 did that, but their pursuits were entirely ignoble. Just as yours, and other ARAs', are. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Dutch wrote:
> > "exploratory" > wrote > > > What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, > > suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. > > It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self.. Wrong. It matters to me, too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect wrote:
> You forget that we had over forty nations > supporting us in the build up to war. You mean like these: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html Yep, Latvia has our back. Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant and even they were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. > More are now coming on board. Even > our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the > French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing. Are you sure that's a done deal? > > I was addressing the United States population. The US population was bamboozled right along with Ethiopia. Right-wing zealots, like you, believe anything the State Department tells them. You're dangerous. > > If you disagree that a > majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find > whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations > have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts. > The highest approval rating I could find was 73%. This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE. Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend serving in the military. This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a matter of personal interest than political support. (snip) > > > (It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in > > Iraq may be right for other reasons.) > > Plenty of reasons. Like? > (snip) > > This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect > vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters > and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live > according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on > full display. If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as a matter of their personal choice? I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a duck is blasted out of the sky. (snip) > > In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals > > tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL > > majority. > > Animals are neither tortured Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus. > or murdered. > specific legal definition. Bullshit! People can use language in whatever way they want to highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word. Lucily, it's not within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese. Kittens suffocated to study cot death are murdered, senselessly, cruelly murdered. > I know you don't care about specific > definitions in your rush to condemn others, Language is a living thing. You have to accept this. > but you're not sincere Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe. > you > are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic > processes among their own species Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes. What's your point? The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're more socialized than humans. > much less in ours. Your point is > laughably non sequitur and irrelevant. > > > I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority > > who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did > > anything to acquire the knowledge, etc. > > I know. As I just wrote, you are an ideologue. You don't care about the > truth, especially since it is at odds with your agenda. Master, isn't it the Truth that all creatures on this earth are our relatives? That we are inextricably connected to all Life? Dosen't the superiority of Man rest with our ability to choose kindness? > > > What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, > > suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. > > ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized > minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists. Terrorists kill non-combatant people without prior warning. AR activists are liberators and vandals. > Review the > list of articles in my previous replies to you. If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists? (snip) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > > > > "exploratory" > wrote > > > > > What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work, > > > suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers. > > > > It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving self.. > > Wrong. It matters to me, too. Suffering and dying my ass... soldiers my ass... What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really died! This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of themselves. There are worthy causes on behalf of animals, but's it's revolting to see people so deluded, so blinded by the glare of their self-glorification. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
frlcnt wrote:
>>You forget that we had over forty nations >>supporting us in the build up to war. > > You mean like these: > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html > > Yep, Latvia has our back. > > Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the > nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant You elitist snob. > and even they > were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about > the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war. Those reasons are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed. Here, read it yourself you old cow: http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml Please note the following: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. The very scale of this programme when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities. Etc. The Iraqi people are much better off than they were. Once again you're on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central America, and you're choosing it again. Shame on you. >>More are now coming on board. Even >>our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the >>French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing. > > Are you sure that's a done deal? Others coming onboard? Yes. >>I was addressing the United States population. > > The US population was bamboozled right along with Ethiopia. Right-wing > zealots, like you, believe anything the State Department tells them. Your opinions are way off base. Conservatives are generally wary of what transpires at Foggy Bottom. Please count me in the wary group, so long as the career officers run the show. > You're dangerous. Thanks, I'm glad my presence and my opinions bother you. >>If you disagree that a >>majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find >>whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations >>have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts. > > The highest approval rating I could find was 73%. Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration. > This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of > mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE. Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN resolutions. Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then? > Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend > serving in the military. Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. > This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a > matter of personal interest than political support. Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or reserves if they'd support these actions and see. The kind of people you find in military families are the kind you don't like; they tend to believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their President regardless of party. I think you're really reaching in trying to minimize the level, and depth, of support. What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed the war? > (snip) > >>>(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in >>>Iraq may be right for other reasons.) >> >>Plenty of reasons. > > Like? Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most unconscionable manner. His repression served only himself, his family, and his cronies; the rest of Iraq languished. Like our other wars, we will leave the nation better off than we found it. Power is restored, schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure and hospitals. Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran. Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan. With Saddam out of play, the Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along). The fact that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to withdraw our troops from that nation. Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists safe passage in and through his borders. We attacked one al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions. Saddam had Abu Abbas killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi) received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in Afghanistan. > (snip) > >>This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect >>vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters >>and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live >>according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on >>full display. > > If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as > a matter of their personal choice? Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus protected from such actions. > I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a > duck is blasted out of the sky. Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected. Whitetails are more likely to bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from arrows or bullets. Do you also seek to ban driving? > (snip) >>>In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals >>>tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL >>>majority. >> >>Animals are neither tortured > > Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or > burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily > granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the > study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and > Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because > no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus. No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important research. >>or murdered. >>specific legal definition. > > Bullshit! No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still hyperbole. > People can use language in whatever way they want to > highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word. I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with your feelings, I'll lead with intellect. > Lucily, it's not > within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese. Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just know that it isn't intellectually stimulating. You'll only preach to your choir. > Kittens suffocated to study cot death are murdered, senselessly, cruelly > murdered. Only according to your emotive use of the word, which really means "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." To parse what you said, kittens are not human and do not fit the definition; and in such circumstances as you allude, they aren't killed with malice, but rather with the intent to expand knowledge. Go ahead and emote, you're still wrong. >>I know you don't care about specific >>definitions in your rush to condemn others, > > Language is a living thing. You have to accept this. Oh, but I do. Words DO have meanings, though, and it's something you also must accept. >>but you're not sincere > > Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that > people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All > this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe. You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for others and other species. You are misanthropic, and you only use "compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind. >>you >>are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic >>processes among their own species > > Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes. > What's your point? Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have rights -- ontologically, naturally, or legally. > The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows > them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them > are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're > more socialized than humans. Anthropomorphism and misanthropy. <...> >>ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized >>minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists. > > Terrorists kill non-combatant people without prior warning. Killing isn't the aim of terrorists. It's not easy to scare those whom you kill. Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault, it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation rather than reason. > AR activists are liberators and vandals. No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts mainly because you have neither. Your views are radical and have no popular appeal, which is why public sentiments are growing against your radical movement. Does liberation include setting loose animals which will kill livestock and other members of its own species who aren't littermates? That's insane, Mary. You're only a lawless and antisocial charlatan. Your principles shallow and your contempt for mankind is deep. >>Review the >>list of articles in my previous replies to you. > > If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists? You'll find text of your nasty little communique about Huntingdon, as well as news accounts about ALF/ELF terror activities. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Dutch wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > "exploratory" > wrote > > > > > > > What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, > > > > work, suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights > > > > soldiers. > > > > > > It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving > > > self.. > > > > Wrong. It matters to me, too. > > Suffering There are jailed animal rights activists. There are animal rights activists forced to live underground. Both of these states lead to suffering. >and dying my ass... Barry Horne died in prison. > soldiers my ass... > I prefer the term 'guerillas'. > What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really > died! And who really suffered and really died for really ignoble causes like freeing up Iraqi oil, raiding coca plantations or squelching peasant movements. Really! > This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of > themselves. Hogwash. Successful ARAs live and work in anonymity. > > There are worthy causes on behalf of animals, but's it's revolting to > see people so deluded, so blinded by the glare of their > self-glorification. It's not that ARAs are so good, it's that you anti-animal creeps are so bad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
frlcnt wrote:
>>>>>What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, >>>>>work, suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights >>>>>soldiers. >>>> >>>>It only matters to you, your sorry, self-righteous, self-serving >>>>self.. >>> >>>Wrong. It matters to me, too. >> >>Suffering > > There are jailed animal rights activists. There are animal rights > activists forced to live underground. Both of these states lead to > suffering. Their actions lead to suffering. Stop doing wrong, work for what's right, and suffering will diminish for all sides. >>and dying my ass... > > Barry Horne died in prison. Someone who purposely starves himself to death is unworthy of sympathy, much less the honors due a martyr. >>soldiers my ass... > > I prefer the term 'guerillas'. More of your radical conformity. They're nothing but antisocial zealots whose radical ideals are so out of step with the mainstream that they seek to impose their will through violence and destruction rather than engage others in the arena of ideas. >>What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really >>died! > > And who really suffered and really died for really ignoble causes like > freeing up Iraqi oil, raiding coca plantations or squelching peasant > movements. Really! It was about more than oil, skank. You left out standing up to the oppressive Sandanistas in your list. >>This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of >>themselves. > > Hogwash. Successful ARAs live and work in anonymity. So much for being brave. They're cowards, espousing their views in the still of the night rather than in the cleansing light of the sun. I must agree with Dutch: your over-glamorized view of yourself is clear when you choose to call yourself a guerilla. <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect wrote:
> > frlcnt wrote: What's the matter with you? Why are you calling me a "****"? > >>You forget that we had over forty nations > >>supporting us in the build up to war. > > > > You mean like these: > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html > > > > Yep, Latvia has our back. > > > > Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the > > nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant > > You elitist snob. No, my comment above does not reflect on the intrinsic worth of the people of these nations, only on the value of these nations as wartime allies. > > > and even they > > were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about > > the presence of weapons of mass destruction. > > Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war. Oh, yeah, I forgot. Saddam isn't nice. > Those reasons > are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David > Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media > overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed. > > Here, read it yourself you old cow: I don't consider myself "old" and I have no physical features that could be seen as cow-like. > http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml > > Please note the following: > We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities BFD. Does the US have WMD-related programme activities? Where do we get off deciding who can possess such programs and who cannot? > and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from > the United Nations. The US won't even pay UN dues, do you think we would allow UN delegates to search our military bases? > > The very scale of this programme when coupled with the > conditions in Iraq Conditions created by US bombing and occupation. > that have prevailed since the end of > Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move > to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities. > > Etc. > > The Iraqi people are much better off than they were. So are the US businesses holding the contracts for the re-building of Iraq. > Once again you're on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central > America, Like supporting the FSLN in its war of liberation against US-backed Somoza? > and you're choosing it again. Shame on you. > Shame on you for suggesting that the US gives one flying **** about the welfare of Iraqi people. > > > > The highest approval rating I could find was 73%. > > Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration. > > > This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of > > mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE. > > Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already > uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN > resolutions. Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. When will the US bombs start to fall? > Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be > corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then? > > > Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend > > serving in the military. > > Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers, > sailors, airmen, and Marines. It's the tainting of the approval rate by this fact that's interesting, stupid. > > > This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a > > matter of personal interest than political support. > > Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or > reserves if they'd support these actions and see. Can't you read? These _are_ the 29%. > The kind of people you find in military families are the kind you don't like; they > tend to believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their > President regardless of party. I don't think blind allegiance to duty, family, country or president is a noble stand. > I think you're really reaching in trying > to minimize the level, and depth, of support. > 73% - 29% = 44% When adjusted for personal interest bias, the poll with the most favorable (to the administration) approval rate shows the majority of Americans did not support initiating a war against Iraq. > What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed > the war? You're the president's cheerleader, you tell me. > > > (snip) > > > >>>(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in > >>>Iraq may be right for other reasons.) > >> > >>Plenty of reasons. > > > > Like? > > Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most > unconscionable manner. This can be said about a number of current rulers. > His repression served only himself, his family, > and his cronies; This can be said about many current rulers. > the rest of Iraq languished. Do you think this could have anything to do with a decade long oil blockade? > Like our other wars, we > will leave the nation better off than we found it. How do you plan on restoring the antiquities lost? > Power is restored, > schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure > and hospitals. That's nice. First we destroy the infrastructure, then we're pay ourselves to rebuild it with the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil. > > Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran. > Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan. That's funny, I only see only two of Iraq's neighbors, Kuwait and Turkey, on the list of nations supporting the war. > With Saddam out of play, the > Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD > programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along). If they don't move fast enough or far enough for our liking, would you support a war against Iran? > The fact that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to > withdraw our troops from that nation. Thanks ever so much. > > Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists > safe passage in and through his borders. There is no confirmed link between Iraq and state sponsored terrorist acts against Americans. > We attacked one al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions. Proof? You'll have to do better than an aerial shot of an indistinguishable training camp. > Saddam had Abu Abbas > killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've > forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship > Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi) > received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in > Afghanistan. Is the presence of one or two known criminals sufficient cause to declare war on an entire nation of people? > > > (snip) > > > >>This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect > >>vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters > >>and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live > >>according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on > >>full display. > > > > If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as > > a matter of their personal choice? > > Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus > protected from such actions. It is not irrelevant for the purpose of revealing if you do, indeed, consider killing animals, not the property of anyone, a matter of personal choice. > > > I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a > > duck is blasted out of the sky. > > Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected. It was your misuse of the word. That's why I was careful to use quotation marks. > Whitetails are more likely to > bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from > arrows or bullets. Irrelevant. Normally, when a car hits an animal, it's an accident. Isn't this true in Texas? > Do you also seek to ban driving? > No, but I think lower speed limits should be enforced at dawn and dusk to accommodate deer and other wildlife on the move. I think in areas of high deer concentrations fences should be installed, funneling deer to well-posted crossing areas and all drivers should be on notice that deer are likely to be present. > > (snip) > >>>In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals > >>>tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL > >>>majority. > >> > >>Animals are neither tortured > > > > Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or > > burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily > > granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the > > study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and > > Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because > > no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus. > > No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important > research. Nonetheless, it is the intentional infliction of unrelieved pain. That's torture, no matter what goal is achieved. Japanese soldiers sought valid and important research on naval movements when they crammed bamboo sticks under the fingernails of Allied prisoners of war. Does that mean what they did was not torture? > > >>or murdered. > >>specific legal definition. > > > > Bullshit! > > No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact > rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still > hyperbole. > > > People can use language in whatever way they want to > > highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word. > > I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point > out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with > your feelings, I'll lead with intellect. That means you pretty much will suck as a lover, friend, son, brother, husband and father. Congratulations. > > > Lucily, it's not > > within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese. > > Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just > know that it isn't intellectually stimulating. Unlike the official press release from the CIA chief, you mean? > You'll only preach to > your choir. Ditto. (snip) > > Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that > > people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All > > this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe. > > You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for > others and other species. Describe a demonstration of sincere and genuine concern for others and other species. > You are misanthropic, and you only use > "compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind. I neither hate nor love humans as a group. My feelings about humans are constructed on a case by case basis. > > >>you > >>are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic > >>processes among their own species > > > > Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes. > > What's your point? > > Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have > rights -- ontologically, Existence bestows basic rights, though offers no protection for those rights. > naturally, Do humans? > legally. Laws change. A hundred years ago, women, workers and children had few rights. (snip) > > The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows > > them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them > > are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're > > more socialized than humans. > > Anthropomorphism Not at all, years of observation of the social behavior of feral cats. Read Leyhausen if you need a biologist's confirmation. > and misanthropy. > Why? Because I say that cat society is more strictly organized than human society? You're overly sensitive. > > Killing isn't the aim of terrorists. I didn't say it was, did I? Killing is a tool. > It's not easy to scare those whom > you kill. Ummm, you sure got me there. > Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault, > it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation > rather than reason. > I'll go along with that and add that it is the last resort of those without a legitimate channel to satisfy their socio/politico/economic needs. > > AR activists are liberators and vandals. > > No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of > violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts > mainly because you have neither. Sometimes you have to settle for punishment and revenge. > Your views are radical and have no > popular appeal That can be said about every historical movement for the advancement of rights. >, which is why public sentiments are growing against your > radical movement. Prove it. > Does liberation include setting loose animals which will kill livestock Isn't it up to the farmer to protect his chickens and rabbits from mink, wild and captive-bred? > and other members of its own species who aren't littermates? Are you talking about territoriality among muselids? It's true a life of captivity might make animals ill-equipped to organize themselves in the wild, but if one survives, it's a victory. > That's insane, Mary. I'm not Mary. Mary is my housemate. She follows the Atkin's diet and is currently vacationing in Munich. > You're only a lawless Laws are like language, they're changeable.. > and antisocial I spent two days last week distributing groceries from the Food Bank to house-bound seniors. What have you done for humans lately? I mean, besides throwing tourist dollars at them. > charlatan. Aren't we all? > Your principles shallow Hey, that's what I was going to say about you. > and your contempt for mankind is deep. Correction: My contempt for some members of "mankind" is deep. Clearly, you feel the same. > > >>Review the > >>list of articles in my previous replies to you. > > > > If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists? > > You'll find text of your nasty little communique about Huntingdon, The *******s! I like beagles. > as > well as news accounts about ALF/ELF terror activities. Hurrah. Any humans killed? I didn't think so. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote in message om... > usual suspect > wrote in message news:<qITjb.36161 > > > his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's > > Yes it is. ============= I suggest you go back to whatever school you go/went to and demand a refund. You have absolutly no clue as to what censorship is, killer. snippage of typical loony idiocy... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . > rectal suppository wrote: > >>The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see > >>through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to > >>"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the > >>quality of life. > > > > Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole! > > > > I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect > > and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian. > > What have I written that is insanity? > > > Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny > > that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed > > and who suffer. > > A vegetarian diet only ensures animals may not be *eaten*, not that they > will not be killed collaterally. Grain planting and harvesting are > particularly lethal for animals. See the first pic on the page linked > below. Add to that the use of pesticides, which are used even in organic > farming, transportation, etc., no food is free of animal deaths or > suffering. ==================== At least now we know he comes by his stupidity naturally.... > > http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm > > > They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough > > times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major > > tenets of debunking -- an irrational form of discourse. > > Such tautology is the practice of people like you, who assume that > because meat is not *eaten* that animals are not killed. You forget the > fact that animals range in farmland, and farmland is harvested using > machinery. You must count the animals who get run over by combines, > flooded by irrigation, or killed by pesticides in your assessments of > suffering and death. You choose not to do this, and instead repeat your > proclamations that because you do not *eat* animals that you are morally > responsible for preventing harm to them. Nothing could be further from > the truth. Eating venison causes the death of one deer. How many were > run over, like the fawn in the pic, harvesting your wheat, rice, or > corn? *That* is the issue. Deal with it. > > > The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama", > > is NO exaggeration with > > his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups. > > Funny that you would presume to take the high road in this debate and > then allude to cartoon characters. Running out of ammo? > > > Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat. > > I've never seen this show to which you allude (only promos), so I can > only make my a priori assessments about your watching cartoons. How old > are you, anyway? > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect wrote:
> > frlpwr wrote: (snip) > > Their actions lead to suffering. Their actions are prompted by animal suffering with human origins. >Stop doing wrong, work for what's > right Practicing for your Sunday church group? Just curious, what work do you do that's "right". That would be none. You're too busy trying to improve yourself physically. You should spend a little more time on your moral development. > and suffering will diminish for all sides. Wow. Who would have guessed the solution to human suffering was waiting right here on aaev? > > >>and dying my ass... > > > > Barry Horne died in prison. > > Someone who purposely starves himself to death is unworthy of sympathy, > much less the honors due a martyr. ARAs are damned if they act against others and damned if they act against themselves. I guess they should just stick their collective thumbs up their asses and wait for the animal exploiters to decide they're tired of using animals for personal gain. > > >>soldiers my ass... > > > > I prefer the term 'guerillas'. > > More of your radical conformity. Huh? I thought you were a stickler for precision in language? A guerilla is someone who "engages in irregular warfare as an individual or member of an independent unit, using tactics such as harrassment and sabotage". Fits direct action activists to a T. > They're nothing but antisocial zealots > whose radical ideals are so out of step with the mainstream that they > seek to impose their will through violence and destruction rather than > engage others in the arena of ideas. Ho-hum, you're repeating yourself. > > >>What an affront to real soldiers who have really suffered and really > >>died! > > > > And who really suffered and really died for really ignoble causes like > > freeing up Iraqi oil, raiding coca plantations or squelching peasant > > movements. Really! > > It was about more than oil, skank. Yeah, it was about Americans' heartfelt concern for the oppressed of the world. What's your plan for the Palestinians? > You left out standing up to the > oppressive Sandanistas in your list. You mean by forming and supporting Contra death squads? > > >>This just shows how ARAs have such a distorted, over-glamorized view of > >>themselves. > > > > Hogwash. Successful ARAs live and work in anonymity. > > So much for being brave. They're cowards, espousing their views in the > still of the night rather than in the cleansing light of the sun. You mean like forming and supporting Contra death squads? > I must agree with Dutch: your over-glamorized view of yourself is clear when > you choose to call yourself a guerilla. You're lying. I never called myself a guerilla. I said that ARAs engaging in direct actions were more aptly termed guerillas than "soldiers" and I'm correct. > > <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"frlpwr" > wrote in message ... > usual suspect wrote: > > > > frlpwr wrote: > > (snip) > > > > Their actions lead to suffering. > > Their actions are prompted by animal suffering with human origins. > > >Stop doing wrong, work for what's > > right > > Practicing for your Sunday church group? > > Just curious, what work do you do that's "right". That would be none. > You're too busy trying to improve yourself physically. You should spend > a little more time on your moral development. > > > and suffering will diminish for all sides. > > Wow. Who would have guessed the solution to human suffering was waiting > right here on aaev? > > > > >>and dying my ass... > > > > > > Barry Horne died in prison. > > > > Someone who purposely starves himself to death is unworthy of sympathy, > > much less the honors due a martyr. > > ARAs are damned if they act against others and damned if they act > against themselves. I guess they should just stick their collective > thumbs up their asses and wait for the animal exploiters to decide > they're tired of using animals for personal gain. ================== ummm, that's you deary... All that exploitin' going on. Gotta do something about it, eh killer? > > > > >>soldiers my ass... > > > > > > I prefer the term 'guerillas'. > > > > More of your radical conformity. > > Huh? I thought you were a stickler for precision in language? A > guerilla is someone who "engages in irregular warfare as an individual > or member of an independent unit, using tactics such as harrassment and > sabotage". Fits direct action activists to a T. ================ 'T' as in terrorist? You got that right.... > snippage of rest of typical spew..... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:37 GMT, Cash Cow > wrote:
wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>brad beattie wrote: >>>> >>>>>----- Message Text ----- >>>>>|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and >>>>>|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production >>>>>|and distribution causes the death of animals. You >>>>>|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are >>>>>|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. >>>>> >>>>>The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to >>>>>consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. >>>> >>>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose >>>>production and distribution caused the death. >>> >>>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent >>>friends like Clutch Wetter. >> >> [...] >> >> Facts that veg*ns want to disregard: >> >> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone >> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity, >> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat. > >Okay so far... > >> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of >> veggies. > >Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit. > >SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever, >and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only >these vegetables and fruits. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of veggies Gonad, even though we can see how MUCH you don't want people to understand that fact. You show how desperate you are to promote "AR"/veg*nism every time you pretend to be someone else agreeing with yourself. How can anyone not see you as the very obvious lame, stupid, dishonest "ARA" that you are? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:
[...] >You've tossed this "benefit of life" >argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses >(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s Subject: contemplative affections Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT Snuffles wrote: > "firstoftwins" > wrote in message > ... >>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid >>usage too? >> >> > Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild > rats! > Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater. If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them, then that sure sounds like a benefit to me. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote: > > >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote: > >> > >>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: > >>> > >>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended > >>> > >>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ > >>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any > >>>takers. > >>> > >>>--swamp > >> > >> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those > >>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are > >>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones > >>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are > >>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer > >>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. > >>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans. > >>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though > >>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, > >>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some > >>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually > >>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. > >>Have you mentioned it to anyone? > > > >Nope, just wanted to know. > > Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some > people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's > any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't > expect anything much from you. > > >You've tossed this "benefit of life" > >argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses > >(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. > > Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many > of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas, > but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make > me feel like I am stupid. Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance of this fact. I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were in such a situation. There are only two possible conclusions to draw from your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are morons, or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote: >> > >> >>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > >wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended >> >>> >> >>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ >> >>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any >> >>>takers. >> >>> >> >>>--swamp >> >> >> >> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those >> >>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are >> >>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones >> >>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are >> >>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer >> >>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. >> >>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and >humans. >> >>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though >> >>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, >> >>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some >> >>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually >> >>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. >> >>Have you mentioned it to anyone? >> > >> >Nope, just wanted to know. >> >> Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some >> people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's >> any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't >> expect anything much from you. >> >> >You've tossed this "benefit of life" >> >argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses >> >(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. >> >> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many >> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas, >> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make >> me feel like I am stupid. > >Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance >of this fact. > >I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you >some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides >finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were >in such a situation. I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far don't believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last ten thousand years has benefited from farming. That idea seems absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case, and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do* benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the absurd idea that not one of them has. Then there's the fact that I see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me. No one has provided reasons I agree with for feeling that the animals don't benefit--and by this time I doubt they will--and every minute of every day I have reason to believe that they do. It doesn't matter how many of you say I'm wrong if you can't do any better than you have done. Simply insisting that the animals lives can not be figured into the equation doesn't mean anything to me. >There are only two possible conclusions to draw from >your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are >morons, You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good thinkers. Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way. I'm in the position of being able to know without doubt when he's lying about what I believe, but "everyone else here" is limited by not being in that position. Even so, a person who enters the discussion should want to know what my beliefs really are instead of just taking the Gonad's word for it, should be able to see very clearly that he is a liar, and above all should wonder why in the hell he makes such a big issue about *my* personal beliefs in the first place! From there, we could wonder why doesn't he care what my beliefs actually are? What would happen if he posted his FAQ with what I actually *do* believe, instead of the bullshit that he so obviously *wants* people to think I believe? >or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of >a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it? Plenty of people understand it. When the issue of "AR" or veg*nism comes up in conversations with other people, and I point out that some animals benefit from farming and some don't, people *always* agree that some do. They usually say they hadn't thought about it that way before, but they agree after I point it out. That means that *most* of the people I discuss it with agree with my pov. It also means that *only!* the people in these ngs disagree. The people in these ngs also seem to believe the Gonad's lies. I doubt seriously that the Gonad is really stupid enough to believe his own lies, and I'm amazed that so many people in these ngs appear to believe them. And the question still remains as it has for years Dutch: *Why* does the Gonad lie? Why does the Gonad feel it's so important, that his lies are actually "needed"? What horrible thing might happen if he didn't??? __________________________________________________ _______ Searched Groups for insubject:****wit's insubject:beliefs author:jonathan author:ball. Results 1 - 8 of about 110. Search took 5.01 seconds. FAQ - ****wit's beliefs (posted on an as-needed basis) .... that he does. The record, in ****wit's own words, speaks for itself. No one has "lied" about ****wit's beliefs. ****wit believes everything I have said he believes, as supported by ****wit's own ranting. misc.rural - Mar 16, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (17 articles) ****wit's beliefs (posted as needed) .... Keep it up! The ****wit is a cancer and you are the radiation ;>) Well, thanks. I should have looked for those quotes a year ago. Most of them are that old or older. And they all point unerringly to the same thing: ****wit's beliefs. alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Apr 10, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (119 articles) ****wit's beliefs (posted as needed); Dreck ****wit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison", has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs. I have never lied about his beliefs. Yes, you have. ... I haven't lied about his beliefs, Dreck. ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sep 26, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (1 article) more on ****wit's beliefs .... is "happy" to contribute to it. Of course, whenever I suggest to ****wit that his ****witted beliefs are based in his religious belief, he denies it. We see that he is lying. Related to it is this: But ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 9, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (9 articles) ****wit's beliefs about animal "benefits" .... ----- ****wit defined six "benefits". He calls all of these benefits of "life" for animals, including the last one, "life" itself. Thus, in ****wit's belief system, "life" is its own benefit. ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 2, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (6 articles) ****wit's beliefs: an addendum to the FAQ ****wit just provided a tasty new quote today, one that shows just what a stupid, semi-literate ****wit he is. Here's the quote: In order for anything to be better for something, the something must first exist. ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 11, 2003 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (2 articles) special for Dreck: one of ****wit's beliefs Back to one of the points you made earlier, in which you say that the animals have to show some awareness of their "benefit", and I told you that ****wit says it isn't necessary: Previously, ****wit implied that it *is* necessary for them to know ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Nov 10, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - View Thread (3 articles) FAQ: ****wit's (David Harrison's) beliefs (posted on an as- ... I certainly didn't expect it to have to be daily, but ****wit showed that it may need to be. ---- All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is ****wit's own. ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 3, 2002 by Jonathan Ball - ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
> wrote in message
... > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] > >I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you > >some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all sides > >finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I were > >in such a situation. > > I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far don't > believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean > that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last > ten thousand years has benefited from farming. Is that all you require to prove your case? Does only *one* out of billions over ten thousand years have to have had a good life for you to conclude that meat production is a good thing? It seems like you're tilting the board a lot. > That idea seems > absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case, > and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do* > benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the > absurd idea that not one of them has. That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit" is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat industry do? >Then there's the fact that I > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me. You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound? You are actually doing the same thing that ARAs do when they present HORRID videos of abuse, except in reverse. You're playing the phony propaganda game. You also don't see them every day, don't lie. No > one has provided reasons I agree with for feeling that the animals > don't benefit-- Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives, that's why, and saying that some live is better than no life at all, which is what you are implying, doesn't wash. Your argument actually makes things much worse for proponents of animal use. It makes it look like we're prepared to use any flimsy justification to support it. > and by this time I doubt they will--and every minute > of every day I have reason to believe that they do. It doesn't > matter how many of you say I'm wrong if you can't do any better > than you have done. Simply insisting that the animals lives can not > be figured into the equation doesn't mean anything to me. They can be figured all right, but to say they benefit simply by being born, and that each animal that's born has a positive moral implication for meat consumers, is ridiculous reasoning. > >There are only two possible conclusions to draw from > >your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are > >morons, > > You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do > feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good > thinkers. Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way. So everyone but you is out to lunch.. OK then.... I remember why I put you in the killfile. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:02:35 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>When you write: > > Life is the benefit that makes all others possible. > ****wit - June 25, 2003 > >there is no room for the "some" in "some animals >benefit from farming and some don't", you stupid >asslick. You are saying that life is *necessarily* a >benefit to ALL farm animals. You are a moron Gonad. Life itself is the benefit that makes all others possible. That doesn't mean that the individual lives of every animal must be a benefit. Some are and some are not. But you have shown that you're too stupid to understand that life itself, and the seperate individual lives that are unique to every living thing, are not the same. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| here are two facts on coffee | Coffee | |||
| 10 Interesting Facts About Tea | Asian Cooking | |||
| NJ food facts | General Cooking | |||
| 10 facts about Luxembourgh | General Cooking | |||
| Some shocking facts and statistics!!! | Diabetic | |||
Linear Mode
