"ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
it would be to continue doing so. The Gonad has been asked
several times for whom or what it would be better, and it was
correctly predicted in advance that he would slink away from the
question without answering. This is a record of some of the posts
in which he has cowardly slinked away from the question:

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good
questions?
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good
questions?
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT

From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraid
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT

wrote:
> "ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
> it would be to continue doing so. Ball has been asked
> several times for whom or what it would be better

You shouldn't be asking Ball, ****wit. Ball isn't an
"ara". You need to ask an "ara".

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:49:02 GMT, Wilson Woods
> wrote:

wrote:
>> "ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
>> it would be to continue doing so. Ball has been asked
>> several times for whom or what it would be better
>
>You shouldn't be asking Ball, ****wit. Ball isn't an
>"ara". You need to ask an "ara".


But you ARE Ball you ****wit.



Kirk

"Moe, Larry, the cheese!", Curly

> wrote
> "ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
> it would be to continue doing so.

That's right, they do. It's a rational position that I disagree with.

> The Gonad has been asked
> several times for whom or what it would be better,

That is not a rational question. It wouldn't be better *for* any living
animal, it would result in *no animals* being born into a life that ARAs
consider to be unacceptably cruel and exploitive. They judge that to be a
net good, and if you believe as they do that the lives of livestock are
extremely bad and frought with pain and suffering, then it's a reasonable
conclusion.

Dutch wrote:
> net good, and if you believe as they do that the lives of livestock are
> extremely bad and frought with pain and suffering, then it's a reasonable
> conclusion.

Let's hope that they don't extend that belief to people. I have this
unpleasant vision of the government deciding whose life is too filled
with pain and suffering to continue. Someone who uses recreational
drugs to provide a bit of escape from daily life, terminate their pain
and suffering. Someone committed a crime, terminate their pain and
suffering(guilt?). Where does it stop?

Bob Yates wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>>net good, and if you believe as they do that the lives of livestock are
>>extremely bad and frought with pain and suffering, then it's a reasonable
>>conclusion.
>
>
> Let's hope that they don't extend that belief to people. I have this
> unpleasant vision of the government deciding whose life is too filled
> with pain and suffering to continue. Someone who uses recreational
> drugs to provide a bit of escape from daily life, terminate their pain
> and suffering. Someone committed a crime, terminate their pain and
> suffering(guilt?). Where does it stop?


It's a different issue. The original ****wit, David
Harrison, is so persuaded that farm animals' "getting
to experience life" is such a good thing that he wants
to ensure it continues. Opposed to him, "vegans" are
so sure that farm animals get a raw deal that they want
to force a halt to the breeding of farm animals. In
****wit's case, he is assigning positive moral value to
animal lives that haven't happened yet. "vegans" are
saying that IF the animal lives happen, a great moral
evil will result, because they will lead bad lives and
then be needlessly killed.

"vegans" make sense but are wrong. ****wit David
Harrison makes no sense AND is wrong.

Neither is providing a precedent for the government to
step in and terminate *existing* human lives.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> It's a different issue. The original ****wit, David
> Harrison, is so persuaded that farm animals' "getting
> to experience life" is such a good thing that he wants
> to ensure it continues. Opposed to him, "vegans" are
> so sure that farm animals get a raw deal that they want
> to force a halt to the breeding of farm animals. In
> ****wit's case, he is assigning positive moral value to
> animal lives that haven't happened yet. "vegans" are
> saying that IF the animal lives happen, a great moral
> evil will result, because they will lead bad lives and
> then be needlessly killed.
>
> "vegans" make sense but are wrong. ****wit David
> Harrison makes no sense AND is wrong.
>
> Neither is providing a precedent for the government to
> step in and terminate *existing* human lives.

Unfortunately you are applying rational thought to the matter. I can
visualize a chain of rationalizing that would allow the termination of a
life where an arbitrary "bad thing" has happened or is happening.

Rational and rationalization have little resemblance to each other.

"Bob Yates" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > net good, and if you believe as they do that the lives of livestock are
> > extremely bad and frought with pain and suffering, then it's a
reasonable
> > conclusion.
>
> Let's hope that they don't extend that belief to people.

That makes no sense.

> I have this
> unpleasant vision of the government deciding whose life is too filled
> with pain and suffering to continue. Someone who uses recreational
> drugs to provide a bit of escape from daily life, terminate their pain
> and suffering. Someone committed a crime, terminate their pain and
> suffering(guilt?). Where does it stop?

You're waaay out in left field here. ARAs aren't advocating putting
livestock "out of their misery", in fact in effect that's what we
meat-eaters do, they are advocating never mass-breeding them in the first
place.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:40:51 GMT, Bob Yates > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> net good, and if you believe as they do that the lives of livestock are
>> extremely bad and frought with pain and suffering, then it's a reasonable
>> conclusion.
>
>Let's hope that they don't extend that belief to people. I have this
>unpleasant vision of the government deciding whose life is too filled
>with pain and suffering to continue. Someone who uses recreational
>drugs to provide a bit of escape from daily life, terminate their pain
>and suffering. Someone committed a crime, terminate their pain and
>suffering(guilt?). Where does it stop?

With eliminating life on Earth. "ARAs" should feel that this is the
worst planet in the Solar system, since it's the only one with pain
and death. As extreme as these people appear to be, we are only
seeing the tip of the ice berg with their efforts to eliminate domestic
animals. They have *much!* more in mind than that. Check this out:

http://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htm

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:54:36 -0700, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan > wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:49:02 GMT, Wilson Woods
> wrote:
>
wrote:
>>> "ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
>>> it would be to continue doing so. Ball has been asked
>>> several times for whom or what it would be better
>>
>>You shouldn't be asking Ball, ****wit. Ball isn't an
>>"ara". You need to ask an "ara".
>
>
>But you ARE Ball you ****wit.

The Gonad has taken one more step down the ladder to
pure insanity, and now actually thinks of himself as being
more than one person.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:38:37 GMT, wrote:

> "ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than
>it would be to continue doing so. The Gonad has been asked
>several times for whom or what it would be better, and it was
>correctly predicted in advance that he would slink away from the
>question without answering. This is a record of some of the posts
>in which he has cowardly slinked away from the question:

updated:

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good
questions?
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good
questions?
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT

From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraid
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:49:31 GMT

From: Wilson Woods >Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.p hilosophy,talk.politics.animals,misc.rural
Subject: ****wit doesn't know whom to ask
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:49:02 GMT

> wrote in message
...
> The Gonad ...
I object to your calling noBalls "Gonad".
Real gonads are responsible for bringing forth life, a rather useful
function not demonstrated by noBalls.

Laurie