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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "Rick" > wrote in message ...

<..>
> > Pearl- Take your meds!

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


... And your fluorinated meds...

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



  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "Rick" > wrote in message ...

> <..>
> > > Pearl- Take your meds!

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

>
> .. And


[stop taking :]

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

>
>



  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
The_Pittmans
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN


>
> 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?
>
>

Are they true Rat?

patty




-----= 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! =-----
  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "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.


Yeah, and sometimes I forget to turn out the light when
I leave the bathroom. I don't lose any sleep over it.

> But what it comes down to is, I
> don't know you any better than I do her.


You will. The most crucial thing you'll learn is, she
is an extremist advocate for an extremist, wacky,
potentially dangerous political agenda. All *I* am
doing is opposing her; I am not advancing any agenda of
my own. My characterization of her agenda will be
manifest to you soon enough, if you stick around.

>
>
>>>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.


I have already offered it. You need to read the whole
post next time.

>
>
>>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:

>
>
> That's better.


Yes; I think "asshole rape-of-children supporter"
describes her quite well.

>
>
>> 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.


You're being argumentative just to see yourself in
print. The important thing in the issue IS that she
supports their goals.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
>


  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "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?


Basic computer competence. Do you need help?

>
> 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.


Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
with Karen has suggested that the group should be
denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
argument about it.

> No, I don't
> agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for their
> right to express it..


You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.

>
>
>>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,


petitio principii.

> 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?


Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
politically.

I have contended here over the years, and have amply
supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
them. I believe that one of the best ways to
marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.



  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "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!


I only wish it were true that political correctness
were a fantasy, but it's a very real phenomenon,
especially in the universities.

  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

The_Pittmans wrote:

>>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?
>>
>>

>
> Are they true Rat?


The statement that Karen supports the only important
aim of NAMBLA - the complete elimination of age of
consent laws - is true. Karen thinks there's nothing
wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
any age.

I think it's wonderful that she is so open about this
belief. It's an act of self-marginalization that helps
to isolate her still further.

  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever


"MEow" > wrote in message
<snip>
> 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.


Most of my clothes are from Wal Mart. *L*

> 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.


I'm looking for a job right now too. I graduated from community college
almost two years ago (getting a two year Associate's degree), I want to go
on to pursue a Biology degree, but I don't have the money right now. I've
been searching for a job since then and haven't been able to find one! The
economy is so bad! I'm intensifying my search though... I had a nightmare
the other night about the future.. still at home with no money, and it
terrified me.

<snip>
> 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.


I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with buying coffee that
isn't fair trade, though it's much better to do so.

> But I confess: I'm Pavlov's dog; whenever I hear Coca-Cola's
> commercial tune I get thirsty.


I'm addicted to caffeine. If I don't drink soda every day I crave it really
badly. It got to a point several months ago where I was drinking no water at
all, just sodas. I realized that wasn't good for me, so I'm drinking a lot
more water now.

> 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.


I'm almost always drink diet sodas now, and it has caused me to lose some
weight, though I know the sweetener being used in it isn't really healthy
either.

-Rubystars


  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, --Rescue never ends....



Bob Yates wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:


<snip>
>>And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or possibly
>>animal liberation, or some other worthy cause, and thus demonstrate
>>their ethical superiority. You make a fetish of laws, and you have
>>the nerve to call people like me and Feral fascists. Blatant
>>projection, jonnie; we know who the fascist is here.


> Interesting, if I read you right you support the right to bomb a church
> because they oppose a cause that is "worthy"


No -- you read me wrong. I do not support engaging in any activity
which injures people or animals, or destroys property except in a
situation where the property is being actively used to hurt or kill
living beings. If vivisection were being carried out in the basement
of the church (on people or animals), I might support bombing the
church to destroy the vivisectionists' equipment -- but only when all
the humans and animals were no longer inside. If the church were only
the meeting place of people advocating vivisection, I wouldn't damage
the church, and I would try to prevent anyone else from damaging it.

Of course, civil disobedience does not involve damaging anything, and
the only people who usually suffer from CD activity are the activists.

Rat

  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Offbreed
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
> complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen thinks
> there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
> any age.


That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
well.



  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,



Susan Kennedy wrote:

<snip>

> In point of fact, I don't know much about ARAs.


Thank you for keeping an open mind. ARAs vary just as much as any other
group, from peaceful philosophers advocating non-violence, to radical
and violent types, just as in the 1960's, the Civil Rights movement
included everyone from pacifist people going South to register voters,
to the violent Weathermen and Black Panthers. You'd have to ask any
individual ARA where he stands.

<snip>
> 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?


In short, no.

Rat

  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,



rick etter wrote:

<snip>

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


>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqok9


Thanks, rick --

This quote explains perfectly why Swan and I marched in that
parade. Man, watching Harry Hay -- a peaceful old man in
his 70's, carrying no weapon but a pillowcase -- being
manhandled by mounted police ****ed me off!

<snip>

Rat

  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN



Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
> complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true.


That I support the abolition of age of consent laws is true, for
the reason I gave. I do not believe anarchy means "might makes right"
either.

> Karen thinks
> there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
> any age.


And this, OTOH, is false.

<snip>

Rat

  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
> >>> of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.

>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/yqok9

>
> Thanks, rick --
>
> This quote explains perfectly why Swan and I marched in that
> parade. Man, watching Harry Hay -- a peaceful old man in
> his 70's, carrying no weapon but a pillowcase -- being
> manhandled by mounted police ****ed me off!

=======
It's nice that you agree you're just two old marginal pervs, but I didn't
provide the quote, stupid.

that you revel in the presence of just another commie, queer little boy
bugger says all anyone needs to know about you.


  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:22:36 -0600, "Susan Kennedy" > wrote:

>
> 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.


"Animal Rights" is gross misnomer in regards to domestic animals. They
want to *eliminate* domestic animals, not provide them with rights, or anything
else. Animal Welfare is a completely different thing. "ARAs" exploit AW issues
in order to obtain funding for their elimination objective. It's a pretty safe bet
that some of their funding comes from people who want domestic animals to
have better lives, not see them done away with. I've never heard of "ARAs"
even trying to establish "free" groups of animals from domestic animals. I've
asked them about it more than once, and none of them have ever been able
to provide examples of them doing so. That being the case, we can conclude
that "ARAs" don't really have any interest at all in creating wild populations
from domestic animals...it's just another false impression they work to create
in order to obtain more $$$, and in an effort to make themselves appear to
be something else that they are not. They also work to create the false
impression that veg*nism saves farm animals. This is directed at children:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?

Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
PETA for free recipes.

[...]

HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?

Pigs value their lives just as much as you
and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
Call or write to PETA for free animal-
friendly, vegetarian recipes.

http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The truth is that veg*nism doesn't save any farm animals, it doesn't
help any farm animals, and the whole intention is for it to do nothing
for farm animals at all.
Okay, so we established that "AR" would do nothing for domestic
animals. How about for wildlife? "ARAs" are quite willing to contribute
to the deaths of wildlife by their use of wood and paper products,
roads and buildings, products which have been mined, electricity,
and their own diets, just like everyone else does. The only things they
really seem to avoid are things which provide life and death for farm
animals. In regards to wildlife it appears that all they really want to
put an end to is human wildlife population management. They want
the animals to die from starvation, disease, and non-human predators,
but not from human hunting. The things they want to see control
wildlife populations cause more suffering--especially for baby animals--
not less.
When we scrape away all of the "AR" BS designed to generate
more contributions for "AR" organizations, what's left is what they
really want, which is these two things:

1. The elimination of domestic animals.
2. The elimination of human wildlife population management.

>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?


Not really, but it sounds very lucky for the other cats that he isn't. It also
sounds lucky for him that he can survive outside without his front claws.

>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?


Sorry, I don't even know what they are.



  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
§odapop
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever

"Rubystars" > wrote in
:

>
> "MEow" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>> 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.

>
> Most of my clothes are from Wal Mart. *L*
>
>> 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.

>
> I'm looking for a job right now too. I graduated from community
> college almost two years ago (getting a two year Associate's degree),
> I want to go on to pursue a Biology degree, but I don't have the money
> right now. I've been searching for a job since then and haven't been
> able to find one! The economy is so bad! I'm intensifying my search
> though... I had a nightmare the other night about the future.. still
> at home with no money, and it terrified me.
>
> <snip>
>> 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.

>
> I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with buying coffee
> that isn't fair trade, though it's much better to do so.
>
>> But I confess: I'm Pavlov's dog; whenever I hear Coca-Cola's
>> commercial tune I get thirsty.

>
> I'm addicted to caffeine. If I don't drink soda every day I crave it
> really badly. It got to a point several months ago where I was
> drinking no water at all, just sodas. I realized that wasn't good for
> me, so I'm drinking a lot more water now.
>
>> 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.

>
> I'm almost always drink diet sodas now, and it has caused me to lose
> some weight, though I know the sweetener being used in it isn't really
> healthy either.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>
>


I just wanted to say that in the past month or so of reading this and a few
other news groups, (I am a new vegan) I am continuallty impressed with your
responses and common sense, Rubystars. You do not resort to the name
calling and cussing of some, you always keep your head and have intelligent
things to say.
Sorry about the nightmare, let it motivate you and not frighten you, if
that helps.
anyway peace
sodapop
  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever


"§odapop" > wrote in message
<snip?
> I just wanted to say that in the past month or so of reading this and a

few
> other news groups, (I am a new vegan) I am continuallty impressed with

your
> responses and common sense, Rubystars. You do not resort to the name
> calling and cussing of some, you always keep your head and have

intelligent
> things to say.


Thanks Soda

> Sorry about the nightmare, let it motivate you and not frighten you, if
> that helps.
> anyway peace
> sodapop


It has, I've been working extra hard to find a job now. And thanks again.

-Rubystars


  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bob Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, --Rescue never ends....

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Bob Yates wrote:
> > Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> <snip>
> >>And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or possibly
> >>animal liberation, or some other worthy cause, and thus demonstrate
> >>their ethical superiority. You make a fetish of laws, and you have
> >>the nerve to call people like me and Feral fascists. Blatant
> >>projection, jonnie; we know who the fascist is here.

>
> > Interesting, if I read you right you support the right to bomb a church
> > because they oppose a cause that is "worthy"

>
> No -- you read me wrong. I do not support engaging in any activity
> which injures people or animals, or destroys property except in a
> situation where the property is being actively used to hurt or kill
> living beings. If vivisection were being carried out in the basement
> of the church (on people or animals), I might support bombing the
> church to destroy the vivisectionists' equipment -- but only when all
> the humans and animals were no longer inside. If the church were only
> the meeting place of people advocating vivisection, I wouldn't damage
> the church, and I would try to prevent anyone else from damaging it.
>
> Of course, civil disobedience does not involve damaging anything, and
> the only people who usually suffer from CD activity are the activists.
>
> Rat


My misunderstanding, I am familiar with cases of "civil disobedience or
possibly animal liberation, or some other worthy cause" where the intend
was to damage or destroy property without regard to injuries caused.
  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

Offbreed wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA -
>> the complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen
>> thinks there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small
>> boy of any age.

>
>
> That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
> well.


It would, but Karen is a carpet-munching *******, so
she prefers to focus on same-sex predation.

  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
>>>> of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.

>
>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqok9

>
>
> Thanks, rick --
>
> This quote explains perfectly why Swan and I marched in that
> parade. Man, watching Harry Hay -- a peaceful old man in
> his 70's, carrying no weapon but a pillowcase -- being
> manhandled by mounted police ****ed me off!


Yeah, probably the same way Michael Jackson is claiming
to have been manhandled by the police. A bogus claim,
in other words.



  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA -
>> the complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true.

>
>
> That I support the abolition of age of consent laws is true, for
> the reason I gave. I do not believe anarchy means "might makes right"
> either.
>
>> Karen thinks there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with
>> a small boy of any age.

>
>
> And this, OTOH, is false.


That's a lie. You do think there's nothing wrong with
an adult man having sex with a small boy of any age:
it is a necessary implication of your opposition to
age of consent laws.

Your opposition to those laws is NOT based on any
"anarchist" principles, but rather is based solely on
your wish to promote homosexual predation.

  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In point of fact, I don't know much about ARAs.

>
>
> Thank you for keeping an open mind. ARAs vary just as much as any other
> group, from peaceful philosophers advocating non-violence, to radical
> and violent types, just as in the 1960's, the Civil Rights movement
> included everyone from pacifist people going South to register voters,
> to the violent Weathermen and Black Panthers. You'd have to ask any
> individual ARA where he stands.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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?

>
>
> In short, no.


The long AND short of it is: YES, the accusation -
that you support the only goal of NAMBLA is true.
Their goal is the total decriminalization of men
****ing boys of any age, and you support that goal.
You claim to believe that boys of any age can give
consent to being ****ed in the ass by adult men.

  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever

Rubystars wrote:

> "MEow" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>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.

>
>
> Most of my clothes are from Wal Mart. *L*
>
>
>>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.

>
>
> I'm looking for a job right now too. I graduated from community college
> almost two years ago (getting a two year Associate's degree), I want to go
> on to pursue a Biology degree, but I don't have the money right now. I've
> been searching for a job since then and haven't been able to find one! The
> economy is so bad! I'm intensifying my search though... I had a nightmare
> the other night about the future.. still at home with no money, and it
> terrified me.
>
> <snip>
>
>>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.

>
>
> I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with buying coffee that
> isn't fair trade, though it's much better to do so.
>
>
>>But I confess: I'm Pavlov's dog; whenever I hear Coca-Cola's
>>commercial tune I get thirsty.

>
>
> I'm addicted to caffeine.


No, you aren't.

> If I don't drink soda every day I crave it really badly.


That's not the only thing that defines an addiction.

> It got to a point several months ago where I was drinking no water at
> all, just sodas. I realized that wasn't good for me, so I'm drinking a lot
> more water now.
>
>
>>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.

>
>
> I'm almost always drink diet sodas now, and it has caused me to lose some
> weight, though I know the sweetener being used in it isn't really healthy
> either.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dragon
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "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.


Actually, if you're posting from where I think you are, I'm not new there at
all. So why would I want to do research on some person I'll probably never
see again when I get tired of this thread?

I might add, I don't usually bother to research people, because they quickly
make it obvious what they are made of. You certainly did.

>
>



  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dragon
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "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.

>
> Yeah, and sometimes I forget to turn out the light when
> I leave the bathroom. I don't lose any sleep over it.
>
> > But what it comes down to is, I
> > don't know you any better than I do her.

>
> You will. The most crucial thing you'll learn is, she
> is an extremist advocate for an extremist, wacky,
> potentially dangerous political agenda. All *I* am


Aw, hell, I already see that she's an extremest advocate. As for the
potential dager of her political agenda, I'm afriad I think it's pretty
slim. :P Too many others like me, who are not only unashamed of being
omnivores, but think humans belong at the top of the food chain.

> doing is opposing her; I am not advancing any agenda of
> my own. My characterization of her agenda will be
> manifest to you soon enough, if you stick around.


Indulging in rational discussion helps. however I doubt if I'll stick
around. I don't think we're posting from the same groups. I'm in
misc.rural, and new here to boot.




  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

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.


I understood jitney's "in your interesting ethical world" to be a
hypothetical, a time and place where humans had already relinquished
their hold on other species. I thought this because her/his question
was followed by examples of non-human/non-human encounters only.

(snip)

> > > 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?


Except for notable exceptions, like canned hunts, organized and red mist
shoots, baiting, hunting with dogs, it is. Other than the odd feral
animal, an opportunity for escape is not afforded livestock.

(snip)

> > 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.


Would an infirmed elephant be euthanized in an outside display or group
enclosure in Nebraska zoos?

(snip)

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


> That only happens if her family outlives her.


Yes, that would appear to be a requirement for a family vigil.

> - whether she's in the zoo or out of it.


Do you think zoo elephants are allowed the privilege of mourning rituals
for their fallen friends?

> Perhaps you would prefer the rotting carcass to be left for the
> flies?


No, I would prefer elephants not be on display in zoos.

> Although to be honest, for all I know, they feed it to the carnivore
> or scavenger species...


More likely the carcass is rendered before being used in animal feeds.

(snip)

> > We don't allow most livestock to play this glorious game.


> Most livestock would not survive this "glorious game".


And why is that? Many of their wild cousins do.

> BTW, I seriously doubt if the animals who do "play" this game view it
> as anything but deadly serious,


Life is serious business. Did I say otherwise?

> or that they see anything glorious about it. Most of them don't
> have a clue what that word even means.


Why would it be necessary to put a word to it?

> To them, life is just that: life.


The Life that animates the steer is the same Life than animates you. To
all of us, life is just that: life.

(snip)

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


Why? Because I don't hunt them or raise them for slaughter? Can you
only "know" an animal if you kill it?

> > > 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,


Yes, most of the meat in America comes from confined animals, animals
who are under the absolute control of man from conception to slaughter.

> because we're more intelligent than most animals.


Raising animals in intensive systems is cruel and I don't think cruelty
is ever intelligent. Do you equate profitability with intelligence?

> > > 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.


I'm sure you realize there is a big difference between hunting pheasants
and participating in a pheasant shoot.

Watch out, though, if you try to define the correct way to play the
game, someone will accuse you of stepping on their rights. I don't see
hunters, as a group, condemning the practice of bird shoots, red mist or
canned hunts. One animal killer is loathe to tell another how he
must kill.

> Most hunters hunt because they like to hunt
> - no to participate in the ritual slaughter of animals.


Killing is an integral part of the hunt. Without the kill, hunting
isn't hunting, it's tracking. I have no objection to tracking, I do it
myself.

> People who do that don't know what real hunting is.


"Real hunting" is not an enforceable legal concept.

(snip)

> > 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.


If you set your ethical standards low enough, you can't fail.

  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dragon
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "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?

>
> Basic computer competence. Do you need help?


No, I'm just curious, because the actual url was much longer than that. I
don't think it's as basic as you apparently do. :P

> > 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.

>
> Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
> with Karen has suggested that the group should be
> denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
> dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
> argument about it.


So? Anyone with half a brain will then be able to see through it.

> > No, I don't
> > agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for their
> > right to express it..

>
> You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.


*chuckle*

> >>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,

>
> petitio principii.


No comprende.

> > 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?

>
> Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
> advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
> is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
> politically.


Thing is, what I see seems more like attacking than exposing. When
you name call it distracts from the argument.

> I have contended here over the years, and have amply
> supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
> a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
> sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
> potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
> to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
> them. I believe that one of the best ways to
> marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
> extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
> than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.


While that may be true, it's been my experience that understanding an
individual is much more productive. I have a family member who is
also, as you put it, a more than willing accomplice in his own
marginalization. Perhaps that is part of it.

Susan



  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

>
> I understood jitney's "in your interesting ethical world" to be a
> hypothetical, a time and place where humans had already relinquished
> their hold on other species. I thought this because her/his question
> was followed by examples of non-human/non-human encounters only.
>

That certainly was not clear in your response, where you refer to it being a
difficult lesson for *you* to learn.

> (snip)
>
> > > > 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?

>
> Except for notable exceptions, like canned hunts, organized and red mist
> shoots, baiting, hunting with dogs, it is. Other than the odd feral
> animal, an opportunity for escape is not afforded livestock.


But we were not talking about livestock here.

> (snip)
>
> > > 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.

>
> Would an infirmed elephant be euthanized in an outside display or group
> enclosure in Nebraska zoos?


I don't know. In fact, I don't know that they are euthanized at all.

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

>
> > That only happens if her family outlives her.

>
> Yes, that would appear to be a requirement for a family vigil.
>
> > - whether she's in the zoo or out of it.

>
> Do you think zoo elephants are allowed the privilege of mourning rituals
> for their fallen friends?


Why wouldn't they be? Personally, I think it would be interesting to watch.
Are you saying it requires that the body be left?

> > Perhaps you would prefer the rotting carcass to be left for the
> > flies?

>
> No, I would prefer elephants not be on display in zoos.


*chuckle* I already know that. Ever been on a safari?

> > Although to be honest, for all I know, they feed it to the carnivore
> > or scavenger species...

>
> More likely the carcass is rendered before being used in animal feeds.


Unfortunately, that could mean anything. Although it apparantly means you
don't really know any more about it than I do.

> (snip)
>
> > > We don't allow most livestock to play this glorious game.

>
> > Most livestock would not survive this "glorious game".

>
> And why is that? Many of their wild cousins do.


Because they are *not* wild, for starters. They lack the knowledge and
experience of their wild cousins.

> > BTW, I seriously doubt if the animals who do "play" this game view it
> > as anything but deadly serious,

>
> Life is serious business. Did I say otherwise?


That was my interpretation when you used the word "game" to describe it.

> > or that they see anything glorious about it. Most of them don't
> > have a clue what that word even means.

>
> Why would it be necessary to put a word to it?


You tell me, you're the one who did it.

> > To them, life is just that: life.

>
> The Life that animates the steer is the same Life than animates you. To
> all of us, life is just that: life.


So?

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

>
> Why? Because I don't hunt them or raise them for slaughter? Can you
> only "know" an animal if you kill it?


Actually, killing an animal has nothing to do with knowing it, other than
perhaps what it tastes like. Living with them, however, is a whole
different proposition.
I was wondering if you were in a rural area, where you would have contact
with something other than squirrels, pigeons, cats, dogs and zoo animals.

> > > > 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,

>
> Yes, most of the meat in America comes from confined animals, animals
> who are under the absolute control of man from conception to slaughter.


And your point is?

> > because we're more intelligent than most animals.

>
> Raising animals in intensive systems is cruel and I don't think cruelty
> is ever intelligent. Do you equate profitability with intelligence?


Whether you like it or not, not all domestic animals are treated cruelly, or
raised in intensive systems. Do you equate intelligence with cruelty?

> > > > 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.

>
> I'm sure you realize there is a big difference between hunting pheasants
> and participating in a pheasant shoot.


Of course I do. I've gone with the hunters - the *real* hunters. Birds are
the one thing I could kill myself if it came down to killing or starving.
Butchery is butchery, no matter how it's done. Animals have to be butchered
if you're going to eat them. Personally, I'd prefer to just chop their
heads off and be done with it.

> Watch out, though, if you try to define the correct way to play the
> game, someone will accuse you of stepping on their rights. I don't see
> hunters, as a group, condemning the practice of bird shoots, red mist or
> canned hunts. One animal killer is loathe to tell another how he
> must kill.


*smile* The fact that you haven't heard them doesn't mean they don't do it.
Consider what you advocate. Why would any hunter give you an opening to air
what they regard as extremist views?

> > Most hunters hunt because they like to hunt
> > - no to participate in the ritual slaughter of animals.

>
> Killing is an integral part of the hunt. Without the kill, hunting
> isn't hunting, it's tracking. I have no objection to tracking, I do it
> myself.


For what purpose?

> > People who do that don't know what real hunting is.

>
> "Real hunting" is not an enforceable legal concept.


Of course not.

> (snip)
>
> > > 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.

>
> If you set your ethical standards low enough, you can't fail.


And if you set them too high, you destroy your own self esteem. If they are
not reachable, you are doomed to failure. I'm an omnivore. I've never been
anything but an omnivore. I happen to believe that the fast kill is more
humane than letting the animal perhaps be injured and die of infection, as
long as you're going to kill them anyway.




  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN


"Offbreed" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
> > complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen thinks
> > there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
> > any age.

>
> That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
> well.
>

Actually, if age of consent laws were completely revoked, it would make it
legal to have sex with babies - of either sex. It would make it irrelevant
whether the child was physically old enough to have sex, and ignores the
issues of power and control.




  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
> > complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true.

>
> That I support the abolition of age of consent laws is true, for
> the reason I gave. I do not believe anarchy means "might makes right"
> either.


Um...I said that, not Jon. It's how I view anarchy.

> > Karen thinks
> > there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
> > any age.

>
> And this, OTOH, is false.


Then I must ask: what do you offer in place of the age of consent laws?
There is, after all, a reason why we have those laws.




  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, --Rescue never ends....


"Bob Yates" > wrote in message
...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> >
> > Bob Yates wrote:
> > > Rat & Swan wrote:

> >
> > <snip>
> > >>And better people often get arrested for civil disobedience or

possibly
> > >>animal liberation, or some other worthy cause, and thus demonstrate
> > >>their ethical superiority. You make a fetish of laws, and you have
> > >>the nerve to call people like me and Feral fascists. Blatant
> > >>projection, jonnie; we know who the fascist is here.

> >
> > > Interesting, if I read you right you support the right to bomb a

church
> > > because they oppose a cause that is "worthy"

> >
> > No -- you read me wrong. I do not support engaging in any activity
> > which injures people or animals, or destroys property except in a
> > situation where the property is being actively used to hurt or kill
> > living beings. If vivisection were being carried out in the basement
> > of the church (on people or animals), I might support bombing the
> > church to destroy the vivisectionists' equipment -- but only when all
> > the humans and animals were no longer inside. If the church were only
> > the meeting place of people advocating vivisection, I wouldn't damage
> > the church, and I would try to prevent anyone else from damaging it.
> >
> > Of course, civil disobedience does not involve damaging anything, and
> > the only people who usually suffer from CD activity are the activists.
> >
> > Rat

>
> My misunderstanding, I am familiar with cases of "civil disobedience or
> possibly animal liberation, or some other worthy cause" where the intend
> was to damage or destroy property without regard to injuries caused.


That's not civil disobedience, no matter what they may call it. Civil
disobedience is something like protest marches and sit ins.


  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Dragon wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>


>>>>>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?

>>
>>Basic computer competence. Do you need help?

>
>
> No, I'm just curious, because the actual url was much longer than that. I
> don't think it's as basic as you apparently do. :P


You go to http://tinyurl.com. You copy-and-paste the
long and unwieldy URL into the clearly marked box, then
click on the 'Make TinyURL!' button. You then
copy-and-paste the resulting tiny URL into whatever it
is you're doing, and there ya go!

>
>
>>>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.

>>
>>Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
>>with Karen has suggested that the group should be
>>denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
>>dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
>>argument about it.

>
>
> So? Anyone with half a brain will then be able to see through it.


See through what? See through what NAMBLA is up to, or
see through Karen's sloppy strawman argument? I'm not
so concerned with either. I'm more concerned with
letting the asshole Karen know that she didn't get away
with her slovenly sophist's attempt to redefine the issue.

>
>
>>>No, I don't
>>>agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for their
>>>right to express it..

>>
>>You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.

>
>
> *chuckle*
>
>
>>>>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,

>>
>>petitio principii.

>
>
> No comprende.


petitio principii = "begging the question"

In essence, you said that anarchy, which IS the
abolishment of all laws, would be a bad thing because
then there would be no laws. That won't do; you need
to say *why* it would be a bad thing to abolish all
laws, not just repeat your belief that the abolishment
of all laws would be a bad thing.

>
>
>>>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?

>>
>>Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
>>advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
>>is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
>>politically.

>
>
> Thing is, what I see seems more like attacking than exposing. When
> you name call it distracts from the argument.


Not for everyone.

>
>
>>I have contended here over the years, and have amply
>>supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
>>a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
>>sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
>>potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
>>to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
>>them. I believe that one of the best ways to
>>marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
>>extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
>>than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.

>
>
> While that may be true,


No "may be" about it. It IS true.

> it's been my experience that understanding an
> individual is much more productive.


That's what I'm helping you to do.

> I have a family member who is
> also, as you put it, a more than willing accomplice in his own
> marginalization. Perhaps that is part of it.


It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? The funny
thing is, self marginalized people often, if not
always, complain about marginalization and alienation
as if someone else is doing it TO them, when they not
only are doing it to themselves, but actually seem,
perversely, to enjoy or even *need* that sense of
alienation in order to give meaning to their lives.
Such thinking is clearly mental illness. Whether it
renders those afflicted with it unable to function is a
matter of degree.

Curiously, Karen never even attempts to refute my
contention that she is self marginalized. That her
expressions of extremist political thinking are those
of a marginal is beyond dispute. The only thing open
to debate is how she became such a marginal; that she
never questions my analysis - that she has a mental
defect that causes her to NEED to be marginalized -
says to me that she knows I'm right.

  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Offbreed" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
>>>complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen thinks
>>>there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
>>>any age.

>>
>>That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
>>well.
>>

>
> Actually, if age of consent laws were completely revoked, it would make it
> legal to have sex with babies - of either sex. It would make it irrelevant
> whether the child was physically old enough to have sex, and ignores the
> issues of power and control.


Karen advocates the total abolition of age of consent
laws. She believes a child of any age can give
informed consent to have sex.

  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Russ Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Give me a break!

> That would be Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

*** That would depend on what state you live in. Wisconsin's DATCAP calls it
"confined".

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! =-----
  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Dragon wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >

>
> >>>>>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?
> >>
> >>Basic computer competence. Do you need help?

> >
> >
> > No, I'm just curious, because the actual url was much longer than that.

I
> > don't think it's as basic as you apparently do. :P

>
> You go to http://tinyurl.com. You copy-and-paste the
> long and unwieldy URL into the clearly marked box, then
> click on the 'Make TinyURL!' button. You then
> copy-and-paste the resulting tiny URL into whatever it
> is you're doing, and there ya go!


Cool. I'll have to try that sometime. Thanks.

> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
> >>with Karen has suggested that the group should be
> >>denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
> >>dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
> >>argument about it.

> >
> >
> > So? Anyone with half a brain will then be able to see through it.

>
> See through what? See through what NAMBLA is up to, or
> see through Karen's sloppy strawman argument? I'm not
> so concerned with either. I'm more concerned with
> letting the asshole Karen know that she didn't get away
> with her slovenly sophist's attempt to redefine the issue.


I was referring to the strawman argument. But now I see where you're coming
from.

> >>>No, I don't
> >>>agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for

their
> >>>right to express it..
> >>
> >>You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.

> >
> >
> > *chuckle*
> >
> >
> >>>>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,
> >>
> >>petitio principii.

> >
> >
> > No comprende.

>
> petitio principii = "begging the question"
>
> In essence, you said that anarchy, which IS the
> abolishment of all laws, would be a bad thing because
> then there would be no laws. That won't do; you need
> to say *why* it would be a bad thing to abolish all
> laws, not just repeat your belief that the abolishment
> of all laws would be a bad thing.


Er...no, I didn't. I said I didn't believe in anarchy because that's what
it was. I didn't say anarchy would be a bad thing, though I also believe
that.

> >>>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?
> >>
> >>Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
> >>advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
> >>is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
> >>politically.

> >
> >
> > Thing is, what I see seems more like attacking than exposing. When
> > you name call it distracts from the argument.

>
> Not for everyone.


It certainly does for me. Of course, I've often seen it used for exactly
that purpose, but I've more often seen it used when it shouldn't be.

> >>I have contended here over the years, and have amply
> >>supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
> >>a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
> >>sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
> >>potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
> >>to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
> >>them. I believe that one of the best ways to
> >>marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
> >>extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
> >>than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.

> >
> >
> > While that may be true,

>
> No "may be" about it. It IS true.


Remember, I don't know her that well yet.

> > it's been my experience that understanding an
> > individual is much more productive.

>
> That's what I'm helping you to do.


*chuckle* No, you're helping me understand *you*.

> > I have a family member who is
> > also, as you put it, a more than willing accomplice in his own
> > marginalization. Perhaps that is part of it.

>
> It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? The funny
> thing is, self marginalized people often, if not
> always, complain about marginalization and alienation
> as if someone else is doing it TO them, when they not
> only are doing it to themselves, but actually seem,
> perversely, to enjoy or even *need* that sense of
> alienation in order to give meaning to their lives.


Mine openly states that he like to alienate certain people. He does not
seem to realize that in doing so, he's also alienating others, about whom he
complains because they distance themselves. Yeah, it is rather odd. He's
actually quite intelligent, yet seems to have a blind spot there.

> Such thinking is clearly mental illness. Whether it
> renders those afflicted with it unable to function is a
> matter of degree.


I think if they were unable to function, we probably wouldn't be interacting
with them. Unless asylums are using the internet for therapy these days.
:P


> Curiously, Karen never even attempts to refute my
> contention that she is self marginalized. That her
> expressions of extremist political thinking are those
> of a marginal is beyond dispute. The only thing open
> to debate is how she became such a marginal; that she
> never questions my analysis - that she has a mental
> defect that causes her to NEED to be marginalized -
> says to me that she knows I'm right.


No offensem, but under certain circumstances - I tend to totally ignore
attackers on the net. This is particularly true when they make accusations
that I think are so far off base that they are funny. Now, I'm not saying
what you say isn't true. I don't know either of you well enough to say
other than that her views are extremist. I'm saying she may view it that
way.






  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN


"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "Offbreed" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA -

the
> >>>complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen thinks
> >>>there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
> >>>any age.
> >>
> >>That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
> >>well.
> >>

> >
> > Actually, if age of consent laws were completely revoked, it would make

it
> > legal to have sex with babies - of either sex. It would make it

irrelevant
> > whether the child was physically old enough to have sex, and ignores the
> > issues of power and control.

>
> Karen advocates the total abolition of age of consent
> laws. She believes a child of any age can give
> informed consent to have sex.
>

If you don't mind, I would prefer her to answer this question herself.


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
MEow
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever

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

>
>"MEow" > wrote in message
><snip>
>> 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.

>
>Most of my clothes are from Wal Mart. *L*


Ah, but sometime you do something which is ehical/evironmentally
friendly without thinking about it. I spend New Years Eve with some
friends, at someone's home, and they tend to not bother spending money
on fireworks, but prefer to take the elevator to the top floor of the
building, and watch the show from there while toasting. Very nice
view. We didn't do it for environmental reasons, but thinking about it
afterwards, it was environmentally sound. However, I can't look down
on the people who did buy fireworks, as it was their fireworks we
admired, IYSWIM ;0)

Happy New Year, BTW!
>
>> 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.

>
>I'm looking for a job right now too. I graduated from community college
>almost two years ago (getting a two year Associate's degree), I want to go
>on to pursue a Biology degree, but I don't have the money right now. I've
>been searching for a job since then and haven't been able to find one! The
>economy is so bad! I'm intensifying my search though... I had a nightmare
>the other night about the future.. still at home with no money, and it
>terrified me.
>

Good luck. I do hope you'll find a solution.
The thought of staying in my current job for much longer is what
terrifies me.

><snip>
>> 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.

>
>I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with buying coffee that
>isn't fair trade, though it's much better to do so.
>

I feel bad when I slip, because I think that if I care, I ought to.

>> But I confess: I'm Pavlov's dog; whenever I hear Coca-Cola's
>> commercial tune I get thirsty.

>
>I'm addicted to caffeine. If I don't drink soda every day I crave it really
>badly. It got to a point several months ago where I was drinking no water at
>all, just sodas. I realized that wasn't good for me, so I'm drinking a lot
>more water now.
>

For caffeine I drink coffee. It's the sugar which it's sometimes hard
to cut down on.

>> 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.

>
>I'm almost always drink diet sodas now, and it has caused me to lose some
>weight, though I know the sweetener being used in it isn't really healthy
>either.
>

I can't stand diet sodas, to be honest. So, given the choice between
diet soda and water, I take water. Good for you if you like it, and it
has helped you lose weight.
--
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)
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Dragon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>

>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>Basic computer competence. Do you need help?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I'm just curious, because the actual url was much longer than that.

>
> I
>
>>>don't think it's as basic as you apparently do. :P

>>
>>You go to http://tinyurl.com. You copy-and-paste the
>>long and unwieldy URL into the clearly marked box, then
>>click on the 'Make TinyURL!' button. You then
>>copy-and-paste the resulting tiny URL into whatever it
>>is you're doing, and there ya go!

>
>
> Cool. I'll have to try that sometime. Thanks.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
>>>>with Karen has suggested that the group should be
>>>>denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
>>>>dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
>>>>argument about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>So? Anyone with half a brain will then be able to see through it.

>>
>>See through what? See through what NAMBLA is up to, or
>>see through Karen's sloppy strawman argument? I'm not
>>so concerned with either. I'm more concerned with
>>letting the asshole Karen know that she didn't get away
>>with her slovenly sophist's attempt to redefine the issue.

>
>
> I was referring to the strawman argument. But now I see where you're coming
> from.
>
>
>>>>>No, I don't
>>>>>agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for

>
> their
>
>>>>>right to express it..
>>>>
>>>>You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.
>>>
>>>
>>>*chuckle*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>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,
>>>>
>>>>petitio principii.
>>>
>>>
>>>No comprende.

>>
>>petitio principii = "begging the question"
>>
>>In essence, you said that anarchy, which IS the
>>abolishment of all laws, would be a bad thing because
>>then there would be no laws. That won't do; you need
>>to say *why* it would be a bad thing to abolish all
>>laws, not just repeat your belief that the abolishment
>>of all laws would be a bad thing.

>
>
> Er...no, I didn't. I said I didn't believe in anarchy because that's what
> it was.


Then you still committed _petitio principii_:

I don't believe in the abolishment of all laws
[anarchy],
because then there would be no laws.

> I didn't say anarchy would be a bad thing, though I also believe
> that.
>
>
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
>>>>advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
>>>>is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
>>>>politically.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thing is, what I see seems more like attacking than exposing. When
>>>you name call it distracts from the argument.

>>
>>Not for everyone.

>
>
> It certainly does for me.


Well, de gustibus non disputandum est.

> Of course, I've often seen it used for exactly
> that purpose, but I've more often seen it used when it shouldn't be.
>
>
>>>>I have contended here over the years, and have amply
>>>>supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
>>>>a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
>>>>sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
>>>>potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
>>>>to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
>>>>them. I believe that one of the best ways to
>>>>marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
>>>>extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
>>>>than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.
>>>
>>>
>>>While that may be true,

>>
>>No "may be" about it. It IS true.

>
>
> Remember, I don't know her that well yet.


I'm here to help.

>
>
>>>it's been my experience that understanding an
>>>individual is much more productive.

>>
>>That's what I'm helping you to do.

>
>
> *chuckle* No, you're helping me understand *you*.
>
>
>>>I have a family member who is
>>>also, as you put it, a more than willing accomplice in his own
>>>marginalization. Perhaps that is part of it.

>>
>>It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? The funny
>>thing is, self marginalized people often, if not
>>always, complain about marginalization and alienation
>>as if someone else is doing it TO them, when they not
>>only are doing it to themselves, but actually seem,
>>perversely, to enjoy or even *need* that sense of
>>alienation in order to give meaning to their lives.

>
>
> Mine openly states that he like to alienate certain people. He does not
> seem to realize that in doing so, he's also alienating others, about whom he
> complains because they distance themselves. Yeah, it is rather odd. He's
> actually quite intelligent, yet seems to have a blind spot there.


He seems to be blind to the fact he's alienating himself.

>
>
>>Such thinking is clearly mental illness. Whether it
>>renders those afflicted with it unable to function is a
>>matter of degree.

>
>
> I think if they were unable to function, we probably wouldn't be interacting
> with them. Unless asylums are using the internet for therapy these days.
> :P
>
>
>
>>Curiously, Karen never even attempts to refute my
>>contention that she is self marginalized. That her
>>expressions of extremist political thinking are those
>>of a marginal is beyond dispute. The only thing open
>>to debate is how she became such a marginal; that she
>>never questions my analysis - that she has a mental
>>defect that causes her to NEED to be marginalized -
>>says to me that she knows I'm right.

>
>
> No offensem, but under certain circumstances - I tend to totally ignore
> attackers on the net. This is particularly true when they make accusations
> that I think are so far off base that they are funny. Now, I'm not saying
> what you say isn't true. I don't know either of you well enough to say
> other than that her views are extremist. I'm saying she may view it that
> way.
>
>
>
>


  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA, RAT AND SWAN

Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Susan Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Offbreed" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The statement that Karen supports the only important aim of NAMBLA - the
>>>>>complete elimination of age of consent laws - is true. Karen thinks
>>>>>there's nothing wrong with an adult man having sex with a small boy of
>>>>>any age.
>>>>
>>>>That would also imply an adult male having sex with young girls as
>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, if age of consent laws were completely revoked, it would make it
>>>legal to have sex with babies - of either sex. It would make it irrelevant
>>>whether the child was physically old enough to have sex, and ignores the
>>>issues of power and control.

>>
>>Karen advocates the total abolition of age of consent
>>laws. She believes a child of any age can give
>>informed consent to have sex.
>>

>
> If you don't mind, I would prefer her to answer this question herself.


I wasn't answering a question.

  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> The NEXT year [1986], Rat and I marched in support
> >>>> of NAMBLA and Harry Hay.

> >
> >
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/yqok9

> >
> >
> > Thanks, rick --
> >
> > This quote explains perfectly why Swan and I marched in that
> > parade. Man, watching Harry Hay -- a peaceful old man in
> > his 70's, carrying no weapon but a pillowcase -- being
> > manhandled by mounted police ****ed me off!

>
> Yeah, probably the same way Michael Jackson is claiming
> to have been manhandled by the police. A bogus claim,
> in other words.


Personally I don't understand how a pedophilic dirty old man could be
described as "peaceful."

-Rubystars


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KFC is a sleazy marketer Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 105 18-08-2008 03:41 PM
Tasteless apples - Doug K Nancy Young General Cooking 14 17-11-2005 01:57 AM
tasteless apples rmg General Cooking 25 28-10-2005 09:33 PM
Tasteless ingredients Daisy General Cooking 29 25-10-2004 09:27 AM
tasteless acid ? William R. Watt Preserving 16 26-09-2004 02:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"