Rat & Swan wrote:
>
(snip)

> And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or
> possibly animal liberation

Heh. I wish I could say that my "prison career" was connected to such
noble causes. I was arrested for indecent exposure while skinny-dipping
in hot springs. Apparently, some of the fellow bathers were not pleased
with what they saw. To this day, I tell myself that it was not my
rather unextraordinary body that so offended them, but my boyfriend who
was endowed with mythic proportion.

Later, when searching my vehicle they found a roach and marijuana seeds,
so they added possession to the charges.

At the time, Silver City didn't have a residing judge, so I had to wait
for the travelling circus to come to town. I was released at
arraignment with time served.

(snip)

frlpwr wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>frlpwr wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hope he found someone to help him out. I failed him, that's for > > sure.
>>
>>Heh heh heh.
>
>
> I'm not surprised you think a cat lost in a strange place is funny.

No, I don't think that's funny at all. What's funny is
your failure; just another in a massive, dense string
of them. Heh heh heh.

>
>
>>Not the first miserable failure in your
>>marginalized, alienated existence.
>
>
> I'm less "marginalized" than you are.

Oh, no you're not.

> You are a self-employed
> "consultant", which means

Which means I have attained a level of expertise at
what I do that my clients are willing to pay me much
more money, and entrust me with much harder tasks, than
they will their own employees.

Heh heh heh...

>
>>Good people manage to go their entire lives without
>>even being arrested,
>
>
> So do a lot of "bad people", dummy
>
>
>>much less serve two weeks in jail.
>
>
> Yeah, man, it was hard time. They didn't serve juice and I couldn't
> score pot.

Just the first of many drunken, violent encounters with
the law, right?

> That's what happens when supply is greater than demand.

*** Yes I know. It is a decrease in demand, or too small an increase that
contribute to the to large supply.
> Consumer tastes change. Whole milk consumption if down, cheese and
> yougurt consumption is up. Alter your business strategy if you can no
> longer make a living selling simple cartons of bovine breast milk.

*** Why would you say that? We do not, can not by law sell cartons of milk.
Dairy farmers can not decide what products their milk will be made into. In
any case it would not matter. The whole federal milk marketing order system
allows all dairy farmers to share in the class I (fluid milk) price. All of
our milk is made into cheese. I have already mentioned that we milk jerseys
and jersey milk is highly prized by cheese makers.
Your comment makes me concerned that you don't have the slightest
idea about how the dairy industry operates.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> No, not lately. Beef consumption is - well, was, until
> last week - way up. It's attributed in the popular
> press to the low carb/high protein diet fad.

I was refering to dairy products. Sorry that I didn't make that clear.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Russ Thompson wrote:

>>That's what happens when supply is greater than demand.
>
>
> *** Yes I know. It is a decrease in demand, or too small an increase that
> contribute to the to large supply.

No. This is fundamentally wrong in terms of
microeconomic price theory.

Demand and supply, at any moment, are independent of
one another. Longer term, supply will be responsive to
demand, or at least, to suppliers perception of demand.

As I wrote earlier, demand has recently been GROWING,
not declining.

>
>>Consumer tastes change. Whole milk consumption if down, cheese and
>>yougurt consumption is up. Alter your business strategy if you can no
>>longer make a living selling simple cartons of bovine breast milk.
>
>
> *** Why would you say that? We do not, can not by law sell cartons of milk.
> Dairy farmers can not decide what products their milk will be made into. In
> any case it would not matter. The whole federal milk marketing order system
> allows all dairy farmers to share in the class I (fluid milk) price. All of
> our milk is made into cheese. I have already mentioned that we milk jerseys
> and jersey milk is highly prized by cheese makers.
> Your comment makes me concerned that you don't have the slightest
> idea about how the dairy industry operates.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi USA
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > That's what happens when supply is greater than demand.
>
> *** Yes I know. It is a decrease in demand, or too small an increase that
> contribute to the to large supply.
> > Consumer tastes change. Whole milk consumption if down, cheese and
> > yougurt consumption is up. Alter your business strategy if you can no
> > longer make a living selling simple cartons of bovine breast milk.
>
> *** Why would you say that? We do not, can not by law sell cartons of
milk.
> Dairy farmers can not decide what products their milk will be made into.
In
> any case it would not matter. The whole federal milk marketing order
system
> allows all dairy farmers to share in the class I (fluid milk) price. All
of
> our milk is made into cheese. I have already mentioned that we milk
jerseys
> and jersey milk is highly prized by cheese makers.


> Your comment makes me concerned that you don't have the slightest
> idea about how the dairy industry operates.
====================
Wow, that's an understatement!





>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi USA
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:20:11 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>Offered wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>> I think some of their supporters are involved with the human
>> extinction movement.
>
>Why should those in favor of animal rights wish any species to
>go extinct?
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Russ Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Face it, lady, small livestock producers can't out compete corporate
> > > farms for cheap meat.
> >
> > *** Uh...... No kidding, I think that's exatly what I said.
> >
> > That's not the fault of vegans.
> >
> > *** It is a direct result of lower prices recieved by the farmer.
>
> That's what happens when supply is greater than demand.
>
> > Consumers eating less animal products,
>
> Consumer tastes change. Whole milk consumption if down, cheese and
> yougurt consumption is up. Alter your business strategy if you can no
> longer make a living selling simple cartons of bovine breast milk.
>
> > thus less demand is what created "factory farms"
>
> No, government failure to bust monopolies is what created factory farms,
> that and the reluctance of farm state governments to regulate
> agriculuture.

Excuse me? Nebraska (one of those "farm states") does not allow corporate
farming, with the exception of family corporations (which are usually small
and created for liability limitation purposes or to limit the self
employment taxes).

Of course, our current governer is "looking into" doing away with that law.
All I can say is - he better plan on moving out of state if he does. He
certainly won't be welcome in this one anymore.

> > and is putting the small farmer out of business. The information /
> > disinformation put out by the vegan
>
> The drift away from whole milk products is driven by health concerns,
> not veganism.
>
> > Vegans / animal rights types want to see farms like ours out of
> > business and have targeted farms like ours first.
>
> I've looked through "animal rights type" articles on agriculture and I
> don't see any evidence of targeting small farms. It's CAFO's that has
> everyone howling.

What are CAFO's?

> > Have you certified your
> > > farm with the Humane Farming Association?
> >
> > *** No of course not.
>
> Why "of course not"? Do you feel there is something wrong with a trade
> group certifying the husbandry practices of its members?
>
> > After looking into it we decided it was not for us.
>
> Mind if I ask why?
>
> > We decided on certified organic instead. Seems most consumers of
> > organic products think that "organic" means humane.
>
> Yes, but we both know that isn't necessarily so.
> >

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> > No, government failure to bust monopolies is what created factory farms,
> > that and the reluctance of farm state governments to regulate
> > agriculuture.
>
> *** Those are also problems. However the real problem is reduced
consumption
> > The drift away from whole milk products is driven by health concerns,
> > not veganism.
>
> *** Why are you changing the subject to "whole milk products"?
> >
> > I've looked through "animal rights type" articles on agriculture and I
> > don't see any evidence of targeting small farms. It's CAFO's that has
> > everyone howling.
>
> *** There is no attempt make to make clear the difference between CAFO's
and
> the small family farm. We are all painted with the same broad brush.
> > Why "of course not"? Do you feel there is something wrong with a trade
> > group certifying the husbandry practices of its members?
>
> *** Again you are trying to change the subject. You asked me about "Humane
> Farming Association" not about "trade groups". Yes I have a problem with
the
> "Humane Farming Association" and what that group of uninformed people
think
> of as humane. That does not mean that I have the same problem with every
> other trade group.
>
> > Mind if I ask why?
>
> *** Simply the Humane Farming Association doesn't understand either animal
> husbandry or the economics of animal agriculture. There is also no
financial
> incentive for us to become certified despite the fact that our farm would
> more than meet their standards.
>
> > Yes, but we both know that isn't necessarily so.
>
> *** That's why I said "think". Of course it is not necessarily so. I would
> even say that it is very unlikely to be so. However perception IS
realiety.

Only to the person with that (mis)perception.

> Consumers of organic dairy products are willing to pay a premium for their
> perception.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, Wi
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:02:12 -0600, "Susan Kennedy"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Offbreed" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end
of
> >> >>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move
> >> >>the goalposts.
> >>
> >> > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything
else
> >that
> >> > would allow humans to interact with animals.
> >>
> >> Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term
goal,
> >> not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the
> >> poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
> >> interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
> >> think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
> >> So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).
> >
> >Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with
us?
>
> They don't. They don't want them to exist at all. They lie and pretend
> that they want them to have longer better lives, but those "ARAs" who
> actually feel that way--if there are any at all--just don't understand the
> difference between AW and "AR", or they believe in "AR" ideas
> that wouldn't work out. Do you **ever** hear about "ARAs" producing
> successful groups of wild animals, from domestic animals? I can think of
> one example that could possibly be considered as such, but that's all.
> I doubt that Rat can tell us of any. Do you know of any?

In point of fact, I don't know much about ARAs. We don't get many of these
fringe groups where I live. The only vegetarian I know, for instance, lives
in a college town and is so quietly vegetarian that I didn't know she was
one until I went to lunch with her one day and she asked for the vegetarian
menu and the Chinese restaurant we went to. By that time, I had known her
for several years.

However - *I* could produce wild animals from certain domesticated species -
provided they are at least omnivores and have not had their natural weapons
removed. My brother has a neutered male cat without front claws who beats
up all the neighbor's cats. Apparently, he considers the whole neighborhood
to be his territory and does not like sharing it. Can you imagine what he'd
have been like as a full tomcat?

As the only one on this side of the argument who appears to be rational
about the whole thing, (you argue the points instead of throwing around
accusations) I would like to ask you one thing. Do you know if the NAMBLA
accusations are true?

Rat,

I will argue issues with you. I will not get involved in a bashing session
with other posters for you or anyone else. I tend not to believe anything
nasty said about one poster by another who obviously dislikes them without
proof, if that helps you any. I won't say I forget it, but that doesn't
mean I believe it, either. It means it will be up to you to prove it before
I will believe it.


Susan
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Susan --
>
> You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
> weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
> about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
> without checking; most of it is pure invention.
>
> Rat
>

Jon

I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).

The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to wonder
whether you would lie to discredit her.

Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone. But I'm
not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might add
that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group where it
means a great deal more than it does here. If rat belongs to NAMBLA, I need
a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.

Susan
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Susan --
> >
> > You must realize
>
> Karen Winter ('rat') is perhaps the most glaring
> example of the mentally ill self-marginalized mindset
> that makes up "aras". Her damaged psyche is so bad
> that she ACTIVELY seeks to increase her marginalization
> by deliberately adopting beliefs that she already knows
> to be seen as loathsome by the larger society.
>
> It is critically important to see the correct order and
> states of mind involved. It would be one thing if
> someone were to hold a belief independently of, even
> ignorant of, what the larger society thought about it.
> That's not what Karen does. Karen is fully aware of
> the larger society's beliefs about various issues, and
> because she is perpetually at war with the larger
> society, she SELF CONSCIOUSLY adopts beliefs that the
> larger society finds loathsome, disgusting, wrong,
> misguided, etc.
>
> Karen does not support NAMBLA out of a genuine belief
> that there is nothing wrong with men ****ing little
> boys in the ass. Karen supports NAMBLA because she
> SELF CONSCIOUSLY wants to express her contempt for the
> larger society, and she knows that's one way to do it.
> It would make it easier to dismiss her as just
> another 58-year-old angry ******* who never got over
> her teen years, except her vocal sophistry can be seen
> as helping true criminal predators.
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Susan --
> >
> > You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> > of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
> > weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
> > about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
> > without checking; most of it is pure invention.
> >
> =======================
> Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully support
the
> pervs of nambla.
> Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.

Offer proof.

And I didn't say anything of the kind, so I hope that's a mistype! :P

Susan

Susan Kennedy wrote:
> Jon
>
> I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).
>
> The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to wonder
> whether you would lie to discredit her.

I never lie. I sometimes choose to emphasize the negative.

>
> Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone. But I'm
> not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might add
> that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group where it
> means a great deal more than it does here. If rat belongs to NAMBLA, I need
> a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said she
was a member. I said she supports the organization.
Her support is philosophical support for their goal:
the decriminalization of adult men having sex with
young boys. Karen (her real name) does not believe in
age of consent as a concept.

She doesn't deny supporting NAMBLA. Here is a comment
from her ******* "partner", a blind fetal alcohol
syndrome piece of human wreckage named Sylvia, who is
the 'swan' half of the duo:

The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.

http://tinyurl.com/yqok9

Do your own Google search
(http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en)
using the words 'NAMBLA' and 'support' in the 'with all
of the words' box, and with 'rat & swan' in the author
box. You'll get about 60 hits. Here's one in the
asshole rape-of-children supporter's own words:

Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
*** movement. The *** movement is ABOUT civil
rights.

http://tinyurl.com/36b3p


It is irrelevant whether she is a member, or supports
them morally and/or financially. The important thing
is that she supports their one goal: men legally being
able to **** boys of any age up the ass.

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> jitney wrote:
> >
> > If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just how
> > do you propose to protect the animals from each other?
>
> In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to interfere
> in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky, this would be and
> is now a difficult lesson for me.

Then your whole premise is faulty, for by trying to convince other animals
of your own species (you were the one who said humans were just another
species of animal) that they should not eat animals of other species, or
raise them as food, use them as test animals, or keep them as pets, you
*are* interfering with other animals. Seems to me this is a direct
contradiction of what you claim to want.

>
> > I'm sure the deer would much rather be slowly torn apart by wolves,
>
> Deer have evolved survival strategies to deal with wolf predation. When
> older deer lose their edge or younger deer don't develop it soon enough,
> they are taken. I think every death is a tragedy, but at least wild
> deer have the opportunity to try their skill against the wolf and, many
> times, they win.

Why do you think the same thing isn't true of human hunters?

> > or try to die in old age in a rock nook while coyotes were nipping at >
its belly.
>
> Or die from septecemia from a bullet wound. Yes, death is rarely
> gentle.
>
> > Or the African elephant, after its sixth set of teeth decay, slowly
> > starve to death.
>
> Hopefully, she dies on the sweet soil of her own territory and not on a
> sanitized, concrete slab in a zoo. Hopefully, her lifeless form will be

Where do you live, anyway? The zoos around here don't have concrete slabs,
at least not where the animals are outside. The exception is the fish and
aquatic animals, I suppose because they are easier to keep clean.

> mourned by her vigilant family, not carted off to the renderer before
> the afternoon crowds arrive.

That only happens if her family outlives her - whether she's in the zoo or
out of it.
Perhaps you would prefer the rotting carcass to be left for the flies?
Although to be honest, for all I know, they feed it to the carnivore or
scavenger species...

> > Nature, with its disease,droughts parasites, predators and wildfires
> > is a far crueler master than the husbandry of man.
>
> I don't see it this way at all. Life is a game of chance for all of us
> with pleasure, pride and persistence its prize. We don't allow most
> livestock to play this glorious game. What can be more cruel than

Most livestock would not survive this "glorious game". BTW, I seriously
doubt if the animals who do "play" this game view it as anything but deadly
serious, or that they see anything glorious about it. Most of them don't
have a clue what that word even means. To them, life is just that: life.

> taking away the ability to win the day by speed, by awareness, by
> stealth, by obstinence, by bulk, by daring, by ferociousness, by dumb
> luck? What do we give them in place of the game? Nothing but a string
> of days or months or years, every one the same.

Hardly. Have you ever been around animals? I must say you don't seem to
know a whole lot about them.

> > Would you sentence the lion to life in prison for murder?
> > Or would the death penalty be more appropriate?
>
> The lion is an obligate carnivore and a subsistence hunter, she must
> kill. Even so, most of the lion's hunting forays fail and her target
> persists for another day. When is it the packer hog's turn to win?

We get our meat a different way, because we're more intelligent than most
animals.

> > Would pheasants be hunted down for the serial murder of bugs?
>
> No. Should pheasants be bred, raised and released in front of an
> advancing line of people with guns?

They aren't released "in front" of anybody, if the "game" is played
correctly. Most hunters hunt because they like to hunt - no to participate
in the ritual slaughter of animals. People who do that don't know what real
hunting is. I can't help but wonder how many of them are sick enough to do
it more than once, though.

> > (Or are bugs cute enough to qualify for rights?)
>
> There is no correlation between cuteness and rights. If there was, most
> of the humans on this planet would be without them.
>

*LOL* That depends on your definition of cute.

> > And of course we would have to arrest the big fish for eating
> > the little fish.
>
> Am I to understand that a fish is your ethical model?
>
> > And then there would be the interesting task of re-training predators
> > in vegan ethics. (Would it be okay to confine the predators during the
> > re-education period?)
> > Coherent answers, please, if you can do it.
>
> AFAIK, only humans have the ability to weigh the consequences of our
> actions and make a conscious decision to change our behavior. We have
> the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use it?

Perhaps because the majority of us do not see what you describe as a
kindness.
In other words, by our lights, we *are* using it.

Susan

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>Susan --
>>>
>>>You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
>>>of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter are
>>>weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
>>>about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
>>>without checking; most of it is pure invention.
>>>
>>
>>=======================
>>Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully support
>
> the
>
>>pervs of nambla.
>>Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.
>
>
> Offer proof.

"I support NAMBLA because it is an
advocacy organization and has a
right to free speech. And I agree
with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
should be abolished, because I am an
anarchist."

Karen Winter
http://tinyurl.com/33cak


She is not an anarchist. That's what she likes to say,
because:

a) she views it as more stylish than saying she is a
marxist

b) she believes it deflects attention from her doctrinaire
leftwing statist advocacy

She is not an anarchist; no one is. ALL of the goals
she publicly supports can ONLY be achieved through
state action, and not just any state, but a
totalitarian state.

>
> And I didn't say anything of the kind, so I hope that's a mistype! :P
>
> Susan
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>>"frlpwr" > wrote in message
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
> >>>>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a
clot,
> >>>>sooner rather than later, I hope.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's kind and generous?
> >>
> >>Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
> >>angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
> >>and hatred; treats them like something precious.
> >
> >
> > Now be honest, you haven't been much nicer. Calling people ****s, etc.
I've
> > been mean to people sometimes but I don't think I could top either of
you.
>
> They started it. They're reaping what they've sown.

Which is just a way of saying you believe in an eye for an eye.

And proving it, to the detriment of your argument.

Susan

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
>
>>jitney wrote:
>>
>>>If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just how
>>>do you propose to protect the animals from each other?
>>
>>In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to interfere
>>in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky, this would be and
>>is now a difficult lesson for me.
>
>
> Then your whole premise is faulty, for by trying to convince other animals
> of your own species (you were the one who said humans were just another
> species of animal) that they should not eat animals of other species, or
> raise them as food, use them as test animals, or keep them as pets, you
> *are* interfering with other animals. Seems to me this is a direct
> contradiction of what you claim to want.

Not only that, but her basis for saying it is ENTIRELY
speciesist.

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rubystars wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"frlpwr" > wrote in message
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or generous,
>>>>>>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a
>
> clot,
>
>>>>>>sooner rather than later, I hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's kind and generous?
>>>>
>>>>Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
>>>>angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
>>>>and hatred; treats them like something precious.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now be honest, you haven't been much nicer. Calling people ****s, etc.
>
> I've
>
>>>been mean to people sometimes but I don't think I could top either of
>
> you.
>
>>They started it. They're reaping what they've sown.
>
>
> Which is just a way of saying you believe in an eye for an eye.

In this sort of venue, yes, I do. There is nothing
gained by being polite here when dealing with rabid dogs.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > jitney wrote:
>
> [..]
> >
> > > Nature, with its disease,droughts parasites, predators and wildfires
> > > is a far crueler master than the husbandry of man.
> >
> > I don't see it this way at all. Life is a game of chance for all of us
> > with pleasure, pride and persistence its prize. We don't allow most
> > livestock to play this glorious game.
>
> Humans don't play this game, we've developed a society where our lives are
> nearly completely safe and secure, where the weak are protected. Would
life
> be better if we allowed killers to roam free amongst us, if we had to
> compete for food or starve? It would be more exciting, it'd make for more
> interesting prose, but better?
>

Good point. The scenario presented, carried to it's logical conclusion,
would require releasing every single person in prison also - including mass
murderers, child molesters and rapists, just to name a few.

> > What can be more cruel than
> > taking away the ability to win the day by speed, by awareness, by
> > stealth, by obstinence, by bulk, by daring, by ferociousness, by dumb
> > luck?
>
> Winning the day for a wild animal is all about surviving until the next
day.
> They don't bemoan the days they aren't involved in a life-or-death chase.
>
> > What do we give them in place of the game? Nothing but a string
> > of days or months or years, every one the same.
>
> Animals seek food, shelter, comfort and constancy above all. We always
ought
> to strive to provide livestock with more stimulation, better conditions,
but
> it's not necessary in my view to make their lives poetic reflections of
the
> life and death struggles of their wild kin.
>
> [..]
>
> > AFAIK, only humans have the ability to weigh the consequences of our
> > actions and make a conscious decision to change our behavior.
>
> I don't believe that.

Shoot, I can't believe I missed that one. I have seen proof that it is not
true. However, it's not proof I can show others, only tell them.

>
> > We have the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use it?
>
> Animals are driven almost competely by self-interest, but humanity is a
> balance between kindness to others and self-interest. How can we justify
> owning property, electronic toys, enjoying wealth and comfort, when
people,
> and animals, suffer and starve all over the world? Should we not all be
> Mother Theresas?
>
> You think of yourself as a model of compassion, a defender of the
innocent,
> and you have assembled an certain set of goals, an array of clients and
> opponents to reinforce that view of self, but in the end you still balance
> the suffering of the world around, the lives of others, with your own
> comfort and convenience.

"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Susan --
> > >
> > > You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> > > of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter
are
> > > weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of lies
> > > about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
> > > without checking; most of it is pure invention.
> > >
> > =======================
> > Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully support
> the
> > pervs of nambla.
> > Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.
>
> Offer proof.
=================
Just google rattie...

>
> And I didn't say anything of the kind, so I hope that's a mistype! :P
==============
No, look at the thread, that was my reply to rattie, not you. It has been
what she has said in the past. Sorry if you mistook that part as a reply to
you.


>
> Susan
>
>

"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
...
> Jon
>
> I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).
>
> The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to wonder
> whether you would lie to discredit her.
================
No need, she does very well doing that herself...


>
> Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone. But
I'm
> not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might add
> that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group where it
> means a great deal more than it does here.
=======================
Oh it means alot to her too, being just as perverted as her buddies at
nambla. Like I siad, don't take anybodys' word for anything. google search
for your self and read them.


If rat belongs to NAMBLA, I need
> a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.
=====================
No one ever said she is a member, obviously she doesn't like little boys
that much...


>
> Susan
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Susan --
> > >
> > > You must realize
> >
> > Karen Winter ('rat') is perhaps the most glaring
> > example of the mentally ill self-marginalized mindset
> > that makes up "aras". Her damaged psyche is so bad
> > that she ACTIVELY seeks to increase her marginalization
> > by deliberately adopting beliefs that she already knows
> > to be seen as loathsome by the larger society.
> >
> > It is critically important to see the correct order and
> > states of mind involved. It would be one thing if
> > someone were to hold a belief independently of, even
> > ignorant of, what the larger society thought about it.
> > That's not what Karen does. Karen is fully aware of
> > the larger society's beliefs about various issues, and
> > because she is perpetually at war with the larger
> > society, she SELF CONSCIOUSLY adopts beliefs that the
> > larger society finds loathsome, disgusting, wrong,
> > misguided, etc.
> >
> > Karen does not support NAMBLA out of a genuine belief
> > that there is nothing wrong with men ****ing little
> > boys in the ass. Karen supports NAMBLA because she
> > SELF CONSCIOUSLY wants to express her contempt for the
> > larger society, and she knows that's one way to do it.
> > It would make it easier to dismiss her as just
> > another 58-year-old angry ******* who never got over
> > her teen years, except her vocal sophistry can be seen
> > as helping true criminal predators.
> >
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
> > Jon
> >
> > I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).
> >
> > The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to
wonder
> > whether you would lie to discredit her.
>
> I never lie. I sometimes choose to emphasize the negative.

You also sometimes choose to name call. But what it comes down to is, I
don't know you any better than I do her.

> > Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone. But
I'm
> > not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might
add
> > that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group where
it
> > means a great deal more than it does here. If rat belongs to NAMBLA, I
need
> > a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.
>
> You are putting words in my mouth. I never said she
> was a member. I said she supports the organization.

Proof. It doesn't matter if the belongs or supports. Proof.

> Her support is philosophical support for their goal:
> the decriminalization of adult men having sex with
> young boys. Karen (her real name) does not believe in
> age of consent as a concept.
>
> She doesn't deny supporting NAMBLA. Here is a comment
> from her ******* "partner", a blind fetal alcohol
> syndrome piece of human wreckage named Sylvia, who is
> the 'swan' half of the duo:

These are exactly the kind of comments that make me discount approximately
99% of what you say. And not only about Karen or rat or whatever. If she
gives me a name, that's the name I will call her, regardless of what you
call her.

> The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
> of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqok9
>
> Do your own Google search
> (http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en)
> using the words 'NAMBLA' and 'support' in the 'with all
> of the words' box, and with 'rat & swan' in the author
> box. You'll get about 60 hits. Here's one in the
> asshole rape-of-children supporter's own words:

That's better.

> Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
> *** movement. The *** movement is ABOUT civil
> rights.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36b3p
>
>
*chuckle* If she really thinks NAMBLA is about the *** movement, she's
seriously deluding herself and needs to read their literature. Or maybe
read the *** movements mainstream literature. The *** movement is about
consenting adults.

> It is irrelevant whether she is a member, or supports
> them morally and/or financially. The important thing

To you. That doesn't mean it is to me.

> is that she supports their one goal: men legally being
> able to **** boys of any age up the ass.

An emotional comment obviously meant to trigger a negative reaction.
Sorry, it's mild compared to what usually goes on in NAMBLA arguments I
read, and it doesn't really bother me as much as it seems to bother you. If
you know someone who has actually committed the act, I suggest you turn them
in, but stop trying to use emotions as a weapon, at least with me. It tends
to backfire.

"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Susan Kennedy wrote:
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).
> > >
> > > The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to
> wonder
> > > whether you would lie to discredit her.
> >
> > I never lie. I sometimes choose to emphasize the negative.
>
> You also sometimes choose to name call. But what it comes down to is, I
> don't know you any better than I do her.
>
> > > Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone.
But
> I'm
> > > not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might
> add
> > > that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group
where
> it
> > > means a great deal more than it does here. If rat belongs to NAMBLA,
I
> need
> > > a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.
> >
> > You are putting words in my mouth. I never said she
> > was a member. I said she supports the organization.
>
> Proof. It doesn't matter if the belongs or supports. Proof.
>
> > Her support is philosophical support for their goal:
> > the decriminalization of adult men having sex with
> > young boys. Karen (her real name) does not believe in
> > age of consent as a concept.
> >
> > She doesn't deny supporting NAMBLA. Here is a comment
> > from her ******* "partner", a blind fetal alcohol
> > syndrome piece of human wreckage named Sylvia, who is
> > the 'swan' half of the duo:
>
> These are exactly the kind of comments that make me discount approximately
> 99% of what you say. And not only about Karen or rat or whatever. If she
> gives me a name, that's the name I will call her, regardless of what you
> call her.
>
> > The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
> > of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yqok9
> >
> > Do your own Google search
> > (http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en)
> > using the words 'NAMBLA' and 'support' in the 'with all
> > of the words' box, and with 'rat & swan' in the author
> > box. You'll get about 60 hits. Here's one in the
> > asshole rape-of-children supporter's own words:
>
> That's better.
>
> > Yes, I support NAMBLA because I see it as a
> > *** movement. The *** movement is ABOUT civil
> > rights.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/36b3p
> >
> >
> *chuckle* If she really thinks NAMBLA is about the *** movement, she's
> seriously deluding herself and needs to read their literature. Or maybe
> read the *** movements mainstream literature. The *** movement is about
> consenting adults.
>
> > It is irrelevant whether she is a member, or supports
> > them morally and/or financially. The important thing
>
> To you. That doesn't mean it is to me.
=================
So you have nothing to offer little boys caught by these perverts either?
ummm

>
> > is that she supports their one goal: men legally being
> > able to **** boys of any age up the ass.
>
> An emotional comment obviously meant to trigger a negative reaction.
=================
LOL You support positive comments for nambla?


> Sorry, it's mild compared to what usually goes on in NAMBLA arguments I
> read, and it doesn't really bother me as much as it seems to bother you.
If
> you know someone who has actually committed the act, I suggest you turn
them
> in, but stop trying to use emotions as a weapon, at least with me. It
tends
> to backfire.
==================
Then support for her is what you offer? If you can't condemn nambla, then
it must be that you either agree, or just don't care. Claiming that
buggering little boys is just an 'emotional weapon' is really lame. Either
way, like i said, she can feign support for poor cute bunnies, but not
little boys. Sounds pretty much insane and deluded to me, but you are free
to choose what you do or don't like. .


>
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>=======================
> >>Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully support
> >
> > the
> >
> >>pervs of nambla.
> >>Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.
> >
> >
> > Offer proof.
>
> "I support NAMBLA because it is an
> advocacy organization and has a
> right to free speech. And I agree
> with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
> should be abolished, because I am an
> anarchist."
>
> Karen Winter
> http://tinyurl.com/33cak
>
How did you get that to call up a google search?

There's just one problem. NAMBLA is an advocacy organization, and it does
have the right to free speech, just as much as you or I do. No, I don't
agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for their
right to express it..

>
> She is not an anarchist. That's what she likes to say,
> because:
>
> a) she views it as more stylish than saying she is a
> marxist
>
> b) she believes it deflects attention from her doctrinaire
> leftwing statist advocacy
>
> She is not an anarchist; no one is. ALL of the goals
> she publicly supports can ONLY be achieved through
> state action, and not just any state, but a
> totalitarian state.

Well, personally, I don't believe in anarchy, because it would require the
abolishment of all laws, including those prohibiting murder, rape, torture,
etc. Anarchy is just more of the "might makes right" bullshit. However, if
she wants to believe she's an anarchist, why do you have such a problem with
it?

> > And I didn't say anything of the kind, so I hope that's a mistype! :P
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "frlpwr" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>jitney wrote:
> >>
> >>>If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just how
> >>>do you propose to protect the animals from each other?
> >>
> >>In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to interfere
> >>in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky, this would be and
> >>is now a difficult lesson for me.
> >
> >
> > Then your whole premise is faulty, for by trying to convince other
animals
> > of your own species (you were the one who said humans were just another
> > species of animal) that they should not eat animals of other species, or
> > raise them as food, use them as test animals, or keep them as pets, you
> > *are* interfering with other animals. Seems to me this is a direct
> > contradiction of what you claim to want.
>
> Not only that, but her basis for saying it is ENTIRELY
> speciesist.
>
*LOL* I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen that word used
outside of a fantasy book!

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rubystars wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"frlpwr" > wrote in message
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>It's not possible to persuade someone like you to be kind or
generous,
> >>>>>>but you won't be around forever. One of these days you'll throw a
> >
> > clot,
> >
> >>>>>>sooner rather than later, I hope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's kind and generous?
> >>>>
> >>>>Nice, eh? That's little Mary Screecher for you: the
> >>>>angriest ******* in usenet. She revels in her anger
> >>>>and hatred; treats them like something precious.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Now be honest, you haven't been much nicer. Calling people ****s, etc.
> >
> > I've
> >
> >>>been mean to people sometimes but I don't think I could top either of
> >
> > you.
> >
> >>They started it. They're reaping what they've sown.
> >
> >
> > Which is just a way of saying you believe in an eye for an eye.
>
> In this sort of venue, yes, I do. There is nothing
> gained by being polite here when dealing with rabid dogs.
>
Do you think I've forgotten the part you cut out? I haven't.

It's still detrimental to you point. Rather like the guy who went on TV and
said he would have told the children of the black policeman killed by the
white criminal to shoot the minister who raised money for the family of the
white criminal. He had a point, but the message got lost in the violence of
the presentation. I understand he even held up a gun and said it would be
his gift to those children for when they were old enough. What was his
message? I don't remember, even though I only read about it in a column in
the paper, which specifically stated what his message was. All I remember
is the violence of the presentation - and that I think the man was a fool.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Susan --
> > > >
> > > > You must realize (as I'm sure you do from the difference in tone
> > > > of my posts and jonnie or etter's posts) that both jonnie and etter
> are
> > > > weird people, full of hatred, and willing to invent all kinds of
lies
> > > > about their opponents. Do not believe anything they say about me
> > > > without checking; most of it is pure invention.
> > > >
> > > =======================
> > > Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully
support
> > the
> > > pervs of nambla.
> > > Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.
> >
> > Offer proof.
> =================
> Just google rattie...

No need. It seems Jon did it for me. :P

> > And I didn't say anything of the kind, so I hope that's a mistype! :P
> ==============
> No, look at the thread, that was my reply to rattie, not you. It has been
> what she has said in the past. Sorry if you mistook that part as a reply
to
> you.

Ah, ok. That makes more sense.

>
>
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jon
> >
> > I'm going to be frank here (no, not Frank, frank!).
> >
> > The way you respond to her makes me more than a little inclined to
wonder
> > whether you would lie to discredit her.
> ================
> No need, she does very well doing that herself..

If so, she will again, sooner or later. But that wasn't the point. You
don't warn someone by sounding like a rabid dog and expect them to believe
you.

> > Also, you're beginning to look like two dogs fighting over a bone. But
> I'm
> > not a bone, and I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. I might
add
> > that I've seen NAMBLA thrown in people's faces before, in a group where
it
> > means a great deal more than it does here.
> =======================
> Oh it means alot to her too, being just as perverted as her buddies at
> nambla. Like I siad, don't take anybodys' word for anything. google
search
> for your self and read them.

How is she perverted? Because she's ***? Or are you saying her partner is
not an adult?

> If rat belongs to NAMBLA, I need
> > a great deal more proof than your word, under the circumstances.
> =====================
> No one ever said she is a member, obviously she doesn't like little boys
> that much...

I'm afraid it's not all that obvious to me. I haven't even seen her state
she's a ******* yet.

"Susan Kennedy" > wrote
> > No one ever said she is a member, obviously she doesn't like little boys
> > that much...
>
> I'm afraid it's not all that obvious to me. I haven't even seen her state
> she's a ******* yet.

So what? You're new here and you don't have a ****ing clue yet. Do some
basic research on the person, several links have already been provided to
substantiate what people are saying.

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
> http://yahoo.sbc.com said:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >I got really interested in animal advocacy when I was a teenager.
Naturally
> >I started looking into organizations like PETA, etc. I was shocked and
> >disappointed at them and turned off when I realized what they were really
> >like. I did find a bright spot in the middle of all that darkness though,
> >and that was "animal welfare."
>
> Have you found a way to work for that, apart from just by what you
> buy? I'd be very interested in hearing about it, if you have. I buy
> ecological eggs because that the standards for how to treat the
> animals are higher for ecological eggs than other eggs here in Sweden;
> I don't recall the details, but I checked and they were higher (also
> for other ecological products). We don't have such labels as "Humane
> Farming" or similar.
>
> However, just trying to be a "ethical consumer" won't do, in itself,
> I'm afraid, so I'd be interested in hearing about other ways to make a
> change.

There's not a lot most individuals can do, especially someone like me who
doesn't have any money at the moment.

I've done what I can to help animals. I took some stray dogs back to their
houses before, took good care of my own animals, talked to people about not
hating reptiles, and various other things.

If someone has money then some donations to the local animal shelter would
be good. Fostering dogs and other animals temporarily would also be a great
contribution. I'm sure there are many other ways that people can help
animals.

<snip>
> >I think it's good that you try to get the most ethical food you can.
That's
> >not easy to do!
> >
> Not, it isn't. It's a very complicated issue, and I think I keep
> slipping.

Someone would have to be omniscient not to slip. There are just too many
issues out there to be concerned about each and every one of them. I mean,
you could avoid meat, milk and eggs to reduce animal suffering, and be
buying, say cotton, with a lot of CDs, or you could be buying other clothing
made in China or Indonesia, etc. with slave labor, or you could be doing any
of a number of things that would supposedly be bad ethical choices. No one
understands all the issues. Personally its all too much for me. I do the
best I can, and leave it at that. I don't know enough to live in a way that
would make me have the least impact, so I don't really try. I just don't
have anything to do with the things I feel are really bad, like foie gras,
fur, and wildlife products, but I may consume other things that are just as
bad without knowing about it.

<snip>

I like to invent recipes too. I don't usually write them down but I just try
to remember what I did.

-Rubystars

> What are CAFO's?

Confined Animal Feeding Operations. It's what the government calls "factory
farms".

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:51:06 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Offbreed" > wrote in message
>> om...
>
><snip>
>>>
>>>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of
>>>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move
>>>the goalposts.
>
>> Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that
>> would allow humans to interact with animals.
>
>Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal,
>not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the
>poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
>interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
>think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
>So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).
>
> They probably wish humans would
>> go extinct.
__________________________________________________ _______
INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
[...]
"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have
any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather
see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again
but at least I wouldn't be harming anything."
(Washington Post, November 13, 1983)
[...]
http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought
before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem
strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree
that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for
millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing
out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and
environmental." --"Les U. Knight" (pseudonum), "Voluntary Human
Extinction," Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Summer 1991), p. 72.

Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not
absolutely wrong." --Peter Singer, as quoted in Josephine
Donovan, "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory," Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, Winter 1990, p. 357.

"Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is
no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat
is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."
--Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PeTA), as quoted in Vogue, September 1989.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla.../antihuman.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow
Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and
resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

http://vhemt.org/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
The environmental movement holds a special terror for ex-CIA agent
Vincent Cannistraro. He fears that within the radical fringe of the
environmental movement there are a bunch of human-hating but
earth-loving mad scientists, who will stop at nothing to save the
planet from human damage. They would even go so far as to destroy all
or most of the human race to attain that goal, and are currently
working to develop a virus that would wipe out mankind, while sparing
everything else.
[...]
http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/vhemt.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
Would anyone be mad enough to kill billions, hoping to stave off the
ecological and cultural collapse of nations, of continents, of whole
societies? It seems despicable, mad - and quite plausible. Speculations
along these lines have already been voiced by molecular biologists. A
specialist in tropical diseases said to me, 'I think it's a terrifying
possibility. I've met enough otherwise intelligent people who believe a
mouse and a deer and a human baby are of equal moral stature. Why not
kill one that's out of population balance, to save another?'
[...]
http://www.globalideasbank.org/BI/BI-137.HTML
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:

[snip]

>There's not a lot most individuals can do, especially someone like me who
>doesn't have any money at the moment.
>
>I've done what I can to help animals. I took some stray dogs back to their
>houses before, took good care of my own animals, talked to people about not
>hating reptiles, and various other things.
>
>If someone has money then some donations to the local animal shelter would
>be good. Fostering dogs and other animals temporarily would also be a great
>contribution. I'm sure there are many other ways that people can help
>animals.
>
I'm not exactly rich, myself, either. I don't have money for much more
than rent, bills and food. I just try to consume as ethically as I
can, since I am a consumer anyway. However, I manage to avoid
supporting H&M by buying my clothes second hand. That's both ethical
and economical.

Next month I plan to go looking for a new job, both because I've had
enough of my current job, but also because I want a full time job as
I'm tried of having to count the days till next pay-day.

><snip>
>> >I think it's good that you try to get the most ethical food you can.
>That's
>> >not easy to do!
>> >
>> Not, it isn't. It's a very complicated issue, and I think I keep
>> slipping.
>
>Someone would have to be omniscient not to slip. There are just too many
>issues out there to be concerned about each and every one of them. I mean,
>you could avoid meat, milk and eggs to reduce animal suffering, and be
>buying, say cotton, with a lot of CDs, or you could be buying other clothing
>made in China or Indonesia, etc. with slave labor, or you could be doing any
>of a number of things that would supposedly be bad ethical choices. No one
>understands all the issues. Personally its all too much for me. I do the
>best I can, and leave it at that. I don't know enough to live in a way that
>would make me have the least impact, so I don't really try. I just don't
>have anything to do with the things I feel are really bad, like foie gras,
>fur, and wildlife products, but I may consume other things that are just as
>bad without knowing about it.
>
True, and you've got to eat *something*, but it's hard to remember to
check if the coffee you're buying is fair trade (especially if the
money's tight), and that sort of things. I sometimes think that I
could, and should, do better in that area. But, how much difference
does my choice, as one consumer, do? It's too easy to feel powerless
and give up. Well, I'll keep trying.

But I confess: I'm Pavlov's dog; whenever I hear Coca-Cola's
commercial tune I get thirsty. However, I've found out that the trick
is to just quench my thirst with something else - both more ethical
and more economical: there's plenty of water in my tap. ;0) Cutting
down on the commercial soft drinks I drink has also caused my clothes
to sit a bit looser, but it's a tough habit to break.

><snip>
>
>I like to invent recipes too. I don't usually write them down but I just try
>to remember what I did.
>
Yeah, likewise :0)
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

I reserve the right to withdraw my kindness and generosity from those
I
determine to be "unworthy'. You know all about "unworthy", right?
Those without "depth", those like the beaver-toothed dwarf.(snip)

Thank you for setting the ethical standard. I will exercise a
comparable autonomy of choice upon the animals that I eat. Would you
like to see more recipes?-Jitney

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> > I'm less "marginalized" than you are.
>
> Oh, no you're not.
>
> > You are a self-employed
> > "consultant", which means
>
> Which means I have attained a level of expertise at
> what I do that my clients are willing to pay me much
> more money, and entrust me with much harder tasks, than
> they will their own employees.

No, it means they want you to hurry and set up their accounting system
and then get the hell out.
>
> Heh heh heh...

Exactly.
> >
(snip)
> >

Russ Thompson wrote:
>
> > What are CAFO's?
>
> Confined Animal Feeding Operations. It's what the government calls
> "factory farms".
>
That would be Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

jitney wrote:
>
> I reserve the right to withdraw my kindness and generosity from those
> I determine to be "unworthy'. You know all about "unworthy", right?
> Those without "depth", those like the beaver-toothed dwarf.
>
> Thank you for setting the ethical standard.

My comment was an allusion to past statements made by Rubystars. Notice
the quotation marks? I was being faceteous.

> I will exercise a comparable autonomy of choice upon the animals that > I eat.

"Will?" You already do and you cloak entire species with the blanket of
unworthiness.

> Would you like to see more recipes?-

No, I'm still recovering from the side-splitting laughter wrought by
your last one.

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote

> > Life is a game of chance for all of us
> > with pleasure, pride and persistence its prize. We don't allow most
> > livestock to play this glorious game.
>
> Humans don't play this game, we've developed a society where our lives > are nearly completely safe and secure, where the weak are protected.

You can't be serious. Even in our society, the safety and security
people possess are very often connected to the degree of wealth they
enjoy. I don't think I need to remind you of the precarious existences
of poor people in other places.

It is something of a local scandal here that the police response time to
a security alarm in Pacific Heights is considerably shorter than the
response time to a shooting death in Hunters' Point.

> Would life be better if we allowed killers to roam free amongst us,

No, animals, including humans, instinctively move away from danger. In
our crowded and complex society, it is more efficient to move the danger
away from the rest of us.

Still, killers do roam free among us, for we are all potential killers
and we know it.

> if we had to compete for food or starve?

We do, inasmuch as we compete for jobs that pay enough to supply us with
food. Ball thinks people who do not successfully compete in this way
should starve in the street. Ask him.

> It would be more exciting, it'd make for more
> interesting prose, but better?

I don't know about you, but I already live in a world like this.

> > What can be more cruel than
> > taking away the ability to win the day by speed, by awareness, by
> > stealth, by obstinence, by bulk, by daring, by ferociousness, by
> > dumb luck?
>
> Winning the day for a wild animal is all about surviving until the
> next day.

Yes, with all the new day entails. Are you saying you don't think
animals have the capacity to appreciate the morning sun, the smell of
dew, a position on the top of a hill, the cool breeze in the afternoon.
the presence of companions, securing a mate? I don't believe the life
of a wild animal is one long experiment in fear and dread.

> They don't bemoan the days they aren't involved in a life-or-death
> chase.

Wasn't it you who once posited that pleasure is nothing more than the
relief of stress?
>
> > What do we give them in place of the game? Nothing but a string
> > of days or months or years, every one the same.
>
> Animals seek food, shelter, comfort and constancy above all.

Yes, and for a free animal acquisition of these things requires a
struggle. That's the difference between living a life and merely being
alive.

> We always ought to strive to provide livestock with more stimulation,

La-dee-da. What would this stimulation consist of? A simulated search
for food? A simulated change of environs? A simulated variety of
climactic conditions? All the things an animal would experience in the
course of an independent life?

> better conditions, but it's not necessary in my view to make their
> lives poetic reflections
> of the life and death struggles of their wild kin.

And why isn't it necessary? Because man has selectively bred out wild
traits in most domestic species. Does this make the whole process more
just? It's like purposely hobbling a horse, then saying it doesn't want
to run.

> > AFAIK, only humans have the ability to weigh the consequences of our
> > actions and make a conscious decision to change our behavior.
>
> I don't believe that.

I wasn't clear. I should have written "...weigh the ethical
consequences..."
>
> > We have the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use
> > it?
>
> Animals are driven almost competely by self-interest, but humanity is > a balance between kindness to others and self-interest.

Yes, and I expect people, I expect you, to pare down your self-interest
to a minimum when your self-interested actions impair the ability of
other creatures to live and enjoy their lives.

> How can we justify owning property, electronic toys, enjoying wealth
> and comfort, when people and animals, suffer and starve all over the
> world?

We can't, not if we use our property and our possessions for our
singular pleasure, hoard our wealth and refuse to share our comforts
with others.

> Should we not all be Mother Theresas?

In some small way, yes.
>
> You think of yourself as a model of compassion,

No, I don't. I have as many selfish impulses as everyone else and the
same gut urge to turn away from what is painful to see.

> a defender of the innocent,

Defender is a strong word. I am not in a position to stage a meaningful
defense of all "innocents", most "innocents" or many "innocents". I am,
however, a ferocious defender of a tiny, select group of "innocents"
whose paths have crossed mine.

> and you have assembled an certain set of goals,

Yes.

> an array of clients and opponents to reinforce that view of self,

More a worldview than a view of self, specifically, but yes.

> but in the end you still balance the suffering of the world around,
> the lives of others, with your own comfort

There is no comfort for me if I don't try to stem some of the suffering
that occurs right in front of my nose. Distant suffering I cannot work
to alleviate, I fret over.

> and convenience.

We all have different tolerance levels for inconvenience. For instance,
I don't expect every feral cat caregiver to slosh through a downpour to
change bedding or install feeders. I'm happy to do it for them.

"Rick" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:51:17 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"The_Pittmans" > wrote in message ...
> >> > >
> >> > Susan,
> >> > Never argue with a terrorist, just shoot it on sight. There are
> >> > plenty of documented cases of PETA support for terrorist
> >> > organizations. Those who support such activities are as guilty as
> >> > those who blow the hands of researchers or kill thousands of mink in a
> >> > misguided attempt to feel important. Fanatics can not be swayed by
> >> > reasoned discourse.
> >>
> >> In a public appearance before a veterans group yesterday, President Bush
> >> affirmed: "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you
> >> feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." The
> >> Commander-in-Chief was speaking of Al Qaeda and Hamas, but we're reminded
> >> that the same rule should apply when assessing blame for homegrown
> >> terrorism. In particular, the
> >
> >.. 'Coalition Of The Willing' led by pResident Bush, who again, after
> >over a decade of terrorization of the Iraqi people through war, bombing
> >and sanctions, launched another all out assault on that long-suffering nation.
> >
> >Now, what about your terrorization of non-human species eh, hypocrites?
> >
>
> Pearl- Take your meds!

No, Rick- Start using fluoride-free water and toothpaste, http://tinyurl.com/33slp !

(See also;
http://www.google.ie/search?q=Tranqu...-1&hl=en&meta= )