 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > > wrote >> >> > > You see how the Gonad wants us to think about "AR". He >> > > certainly has no business criticising you for being a veg*n, when >> > > he openly supports the elimination of livestock but you don't. >> > >> > He's in an especially nuts mood today >> > from the posts I've seen. Turning to >> > insults again. He is very quick to tell >> > you what you MUST believe, that being >> > the elimination. >> >> Do you actually believe that Jonathan/Rudy or I advocate the > elimination of >> livestock? If you do, you're a bigger dope than I thought. > > I'm not saying that you believe it > yourselves, just that you frequently > tell people that's what they MUST > believe, so it does come across > like you're supporting it. Neither one of us has ever told anyone that they ought to believe in elimination of livestock. David just says that because he is upset that we refuse to support his case against veganism. In case you missed it, that case is that "veganism fails to provide decent lives for animals". We don't support that argument because it's idiotic, circular sophistry. [..] >> > > Agreed. Do away with the suffering, not the animals. >> > >> > Your arguments on that have made >> > me reconsider whether I'm ever >> > going to give up eggs. As long >> > as used in moderation from >> > happy, healthy hens >> >> Do you know what happens to male hatchlings? They are sorted out by > workers, >> picked off a conveyer belt, tossed into a hopper where they are ground > up >> alive, then fed to the hens. > > Not fed to the hens I would like > to support. If you haven't made the effort to find out then your wishes aren't worth much. > I don't want to ever > buy supermarket eggs again. All supermarket eggs are not the same. > I'll also take this opportunity to > say that I'm against the grounding > up of any animal while they are > alive. Don't tell me, tell the chicken producers. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com... Scented Nectar wrote: > Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid LYING no-value cracker, lied in message > ... > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > > > > >Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid LYING no-value cracker, lied in message > > .. . > > >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> >Rudy Canoza beat the hell out of ****wit: > > >> > > >> >> An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it. You > > >> >> did not "benefit" by coming into existence. AFTER you > > >> >> came into existence, then you were in a position to > > >> >> benefit from some things, but your initial existence in > > >> >> and of itself was not a benefit to you. A benefit is > > >> >> something that improves the welfare of an entity, and > > >> >> prior to existing, the entity didn't HAVE any welfare > > >> >> to be improved. Ergo, coming into existence was not a > > >> >> benefit. It's really that simple. > > >> > > > >> >I'm thinking about life meaning from > > >> >existance onwards, > > >> > > >> Yes, anyone would. "ARAs" must oppose the suggestion > > >> that people contribute to decent AW, because it works > > >> against what they hope to accomplish: > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > > >> "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the > > >> theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social > > >> changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values > > >> prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to > > >> call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione, > > >> The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55. > > >> > > >> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal > > >> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment > > >> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of > > >> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only > > >> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are > > >> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means > > >> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992, > > >> [...] > > >> > http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt > > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > > >> Causing farm animals to live is NOT an "ethically > > >> superior" thing than wanting farm animals not to exist > > >> > > >> You consider that it "got to experience life" to be > > >> some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. > > >> > > >> the "getting to experience > > >> life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given > > >> none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by > > >> humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. > > >> > > >> It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense > > >> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they > > >> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's > > >> your answer. > > >> > > >> Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it. > > >> > > >> There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm > > >> animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more > > >> just world. > > >> > > >> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the > > >> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from > > >> killing them. > > >> > > >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) > > > > > >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, > > >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding > > >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's > > >going on here.  > > > > You see how the Gonad wants us to think about "AR". He > > certainly has no business criticising you for being a veg*n, when > > he openly supports the elimination of livestock but you don't. > > He's in an especially nuts mood today > from the posts I've seen. > No, Skanky. You are in an exceptionally strong LYING mood today. You > LIED about what I was saying about Goober****wit's position. He DOES > claim that existence per se is a "benefit" to farm animals, > IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of life. I showed it to you. In my memory, he always has said that life is a benefit to some animals. SOME based on quality of life. > > >That's one of those debate topics > > >that can get real tricky. Do the egg > > >and sperm have any cognizance? > > >Does existing begin then, or at > > >conception? Or at a few months > > >before full term? Or at birth? > > >Contraversial topic. But whenever > > >it is, if it's going to have a good > > >life, then existing is a benefit. > > > > Of course, and a necessary one. So is life. Another thing > > the Gonad can't explain is how something that is no longer > > alive can benefit. That's because it can't, since life is THE > > benefit which makes all others possible. Hard to believe > > anyone is too stupid to understand that one imo, but, the > > Gonad insists that he is. I don't believe it, and wonder why > > he lies about that like several other things. > > He won't admit he's wrong. > I'm not wrong, Skanky. The very definition of "benefit" means I am > right. A benefit is something that IMPROVES the welfare of an entity. > Since the entity didn't exist prior to existing, and thus had no > welfare to be improved, therefore existence (compared to never > existing) is NOT a benefit. It simply cannot be one. If it's a good existance, a good life, then getting to live was a benefit. Welfare has been improved from nonexisting to existing happy. > Because you're a stupid and stubborn pothead skank, you are not seeing > the issue. The issue is existence COMPARED WITH never existing. > Goober****wit for certain, and apparently you too, believe that > existing is a "benefit" compared to never existing. It is not; it > cannot be. EVEN IF the life an animal lives is nothing but bliss, its > existence is NOT a benefit compared with never existing. That's such a fussy difference of opinion. Do you really think it's worth arguing whether existing is a benefit technically? I think we get everyone's point. DH wants good lives for the animals and you want to stress that you don't feel existing is a benefit. > > >I would think it's obvious that you > > >definitely consider the quality of > > >life. I don't know either why he > > >lies about that, but I've seem him > > >do just that. > > > > I'm glad you don't mind admitting that you've noticed. > > I've noticed a lot of crazy things > about him. > You have not noticed at any time that I've lied about Goober****wit not > taking quality of life into account when he reaches his absurd > conclusion about existence being a "benefit" compared to never > existing. I haven't lied - Goober****wit does NOT take quality of life > into account, as I have proved. I must have missed that proof, since I'm not convinced. > > >> >>and that "vegans", who want to "deny life" to farm animals, > > >> >>are doing "them" some kind of disservice. > > >> > > >> That was proven a lie probably even before he started > > >> making a big deal about telling it, when I pointed out it's > > >> no worse than the fact that we don't raise porcupines for > > >> food. > > > > > >Luckily for porcupines, they can live > > >well in the wild. > > > > Yes, it would be very impractical as well, which is why I > > used them in particular as an example...hoping that would > > help even someone as stupid and dishonest as the Gonad > > acknowledge the truth. But no, he keeps on lying. I can't > > really recall him telling the truth about anything, can you? > > I'll bet even he himself can't remember > the last time he told the truth. > I haven't lied at all, you skanky ****. Here's what Goober****wit > wrote that PROVES he isn't considering quality of life: > I don't want to have to explain this every time Rudy lies about > that, > but maybe I have a stock answer about it from years ago...no. Damn. > Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the most important > benefits for any being. > Do you see any reference to quality of life in that statement, you > filthy skanky lying ****? Do you have a fear of dirty genitals or something? As far as the reference goes, he's made the quality of life remark in enough other postings to see the big picture. > Goober****wit does NOT take quality of life into account, and you KNOW > it. He views existence (versus never existing) to be a "benefit" to > farm animals IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life. His quote proves it. > Stop lying. > > >Many domesticated > > >animals can't and are in an almost > > >symbiotic relationship with humans. > > >We caused them to be tame and > > >lose their wild skills, so it's up to > > >us to keep their species living. > > > > > >> >>He also > > >> >> thinks that by causing "them" to come into existence, > > >> >> he, ****wit, is doing "them" some kind of good deed. > > >> > > >> I point out that "Animal Rights" would not provide > > >> domestic animals with longer lives, better lives, rights, > > >> or anything else. > > >> I also point out that some farm animals benefit from > > >> farming, so their lives should be given as much or > > >> more consideration than their deaths. > > > > > >My mother (also a veggie) lives > > >next to some people raising their > > >own sheep for food. However, > > >unlike many farms, they are being > > >allowed a nice, fairly long, happy > > >outdoors life. Although I don't > > >like the intentional death at the > > >end for them, they are at least > > >living happy lives and to an older > > >age than factory farmed ones. > > >This is much much more kind > > >and if someone's going to eat > > >meat, it can't be done better > > >than that. Their deaths will be > > >as instant as possible for the > > >least amount of suffering. > > > > I have heard that sheep, unlike other animals, > > notice and become terrified when another is killed > > near them. If it's not too much bother, would you > > ask your mother to ask them about that, and see > > if they take it into consideration if it's true? If you > > do, please let us know what they say about it. > > I will ask her about that. > Don't bother. Your skanky mother is a lying slut just like you, and > also an idiot. Is she a pothead? Wow, such insults towards someone you've never even conversed with. > > >> >> He is wrong on both counts. > > >> > > >> We know "ARAs" want us to believe that, but what > > >> they can't explain is why we should. > > >> > > >> >I have my own take on it. I think that > > >> >there should not be a total elimination > > >> >of domesticated animals. However, > > >> >I would like to see a reduction of > > >> >only those in bad conditions, even > > >> >though that might be the majority > > >> >of them. It's unrealistic and idealistic > > >> >but it's what I would like to see. > > >> > > >> It's not unrealistic. If it came down to it, don't you > > >> think most people would rather see farm animals > > >> provided with decent lives than see them eliminated? > > >> I am totally convinced that they would, and it sure > > >> looks as though the gonads are terrified that they > > >> would too. > > > > > >I agree that most would like to see > > >good conditions, veg and meateater > > >alike. > > > > Strangely not the supposedly ethical veg*ns. They > > would rather see more deaths per serving from veggies, > > even when there could be far fewer deaths per serving > > from grass raised meat and milk, as well as providing > > decent lives for livestock. These people are nothing > > to look up to, and in some ways worse than meat > > consumers who don't care at all. > > My opinions are too off track to be > ever considered a vegan in it's > ITS, stupid illiterate skank That really upsets you, doesn't it. I must admit that I laugh when I see you freak out over typos. It's just too silly. > original definition. I no longer feel > that I am responsible for cds > No one cares what you "feel". You ARE responsible for them. That is > simply a fact. Your feelings about it don't matter. I'm not responsible for farming cds. You'll have to take that up with the farmers. > > > >I can't imagine anyone wanting > > >extinction though, especially since > > >there are (some) good homes for > > >them. > > > > Agreed. Do away with the suffering, not the animals. > > Your arguments on that have made > me reconsider whether I'm ever > going to give up eggs. > Of course: if there's some way for you to lie and rationalize your way > to hedonistic pleasure, you'll do it. How dare I want to see happiness. > Stupid whore. Do you really think I'm a prostitute? No. You are just throwing insults again. Try to personalize them a bit more. I just can't identify with being a whore. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > wrote in message ... > [..] > >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) > > > >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, > >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding > >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's > >going on here. > > Harrison is trying to get you to believe that, contrary > to what Jon says, Jon happens to be an ARA and > sympathetic to their proposition concerning livestock > abolition. Though it might be tempting to go along with > Harrison for the purpose of annoying Jon, it would be > a mistake to actually believe him. I take everyone here with a grain of salt. The quotes above though, even though partial really stuck out as being from Jon/rudy. It confused me at first because I couldn't understand why DH was sounding like Rudy. > Jon is not an ARA, and nor is he sympathetic to any > proposition which promotes the abolition of livestock. > Unlike Harrison who misrepresents Jon's position by > presenting only his partial quotes here, Jon meticulously > assembles Harrison's quotes in full and with a link for > those who might want to verify the accuracy of them. I don't believe Jon to be an ARA, but it can be misleading when he or Dutch tell people that they MUST believe this or that. It comes across sounding like they believe it themselves and are trying to convince others. > If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first > to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've > been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. > There have been times when I've gone after him for > what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the > evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or > misquote from Harrison. > > That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice > and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, > especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find > that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've > some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one > valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan > to even those scores up a bit. Jon called my mom a slut, and she isn't. He called me marginally employed and I'm not. Someof the wacky stuff he writes, if he's not lying, then he really believes it. He does dishonest things with people's quotes but that's only similar to a lie. Good luck with settling the score. I'll be an avid spectator. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > > wrote > >> > >> > > You see how the Gonad wants us to think about "AR". He > >> > > certainly has no business criticising you for being a veg*n, when > >> > > he openly supports the elimination of livestock but you don't. > >> > > >> > He's in an especially nuts mood today > >> > from the posts I've seen. Turning to > >> > insults again. He is very quick to tell > >> > you what you MUST believe, that being > >> > the elimination. > >> > >> Do you actually believe that Jonathan/Rudy or I advocate the > > elimination of > >> livestock? If you do, you're a bigger dope than I thought. > > > > I'm not saying that you believe it > > yourselves, just that you frequently > > tell people that's what they MUST > > believe, so it does come across > > like you're supporting it. > > Neither one of us has ever told anyone that they ought to believe in > elimination of livestock. David just says that because he is upset that we > refuse to support his case against veganism. In case you missed it, that > case is that "veganism fails to provide decent lives for animals". We don't > support that argument because it's idiotic, circular sophistry. Your wording and especially Rudy's wordings give the wrong idea about that. The parts where you say what someone else MUST believe. As far as veganism failing to provide decent lives for animals, it's a good point. I think that vegans should consider what would happen in the extreme scenario of the whole world going vegan. Some animals will need saving, and keeping in good homes to prevent extinction. It's doubtful that the world will ever turn vegan, but that what-if should be considered. > [..] > > >> > > Agreed. Do away with the suffering, not the animals. > >> > > >> > Your arguments on that have made > >> > me reconsider whether I'm ever > >> > going to give up eggs. As long > >> > as used in moderation from > >> > happy, healthy hens > >> > >> Do you know what happens to male hatchlings? They are sorted out by > > workers, > >> picked off a conveyer belt, tossed into a hopper where they are ground > > up > >> alive, then fed to the hens. > > > > Not fed to the hens I would like > > to support. > > If you haven't made the effort to find out then your wishes aren't worth > much. I haven't yet looked into what my local health food store has to offer. I'm going to examine the package descriptions and go for the ones that seem to be from the kindest, healthiest farms. I will be taking a chance though that they buy their chickens from a place with cruel practices. If I really get wanting to know, I could probably call or email each supplier and find out further details like whether there is any animal matter in their feed. > > I don't want to ever > > buy supermarket eggs again. > > All supermarket eggs are not the same. Sometimes I've seen healthier looking ones, if the packaging is to be believed. Ones that claim omega 3 oils, etc. Those are what I was buying before. It may be weeks before I need to buy eggs again since I don't eat many, but they will come from free roaming hens. > > I'll also take this opportunity to > > say that I'm against the grounding > > up of any animal while they are > > alive. > > Don't tell me, tell the chicken producers. Okay, fair enough. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > oups.com... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid LYING no-value cracker, lied in > message > > ... > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid LYING no-value cracker, lied > in message > > > .. . > > > >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:55:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >Rudy Canoza beat the hell out of ****wit: > > > >> > > > >> >> An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it. You > > > >> >> did not "benefit" by coming into existence. AFTER you > > > >> >> came into existence, then you were in a position to > > > >> >> benefit from some things, but your initial existence in > > > >> >> and of itself was not a benefit to you. A benefit is > > > >> >> something that improves the welfare of an entity, and > > > >> >> prior to existing, the entity didn't HAVE any welfare > > > >> >> to be improved. Ergo, coming into existence was not a > > > >> >> benefit. It's really that simple. > > > >> > > > > >> >I'm thinking about life meaning from > > > >> >existance onwards, > > > >> > > > >> Yes, anyone would. "ARAs" must oppose the suggestion > > > >> that people contribute to decent AW, because it works > > > >> against what they hope to accomplish: > > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > > > >> "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the > > > >> theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social > > > >> changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values > > > >> prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right > to > > > >> call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione, > > > >> The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55. > > > >> > > > >> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal > > > >> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment > > > >> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of > > > >> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can > only > > > >> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are > > > >> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means > > > >> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992, > > > >> [...] > > > >> > > http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt > > > >> > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > > > >> Causing farm animals to live is NOT an "ethically > > > >> superior" thing than wanting farm animals not to exist > > > >> > > > >> You consider that it "got to experience life" to be > > > >> some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. > > > >> > > > >> the "getting to experience > > > >> life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given > > > >> none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by > > > >> humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. > > > >> > > > >> It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense > > > >> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they > > > >> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's > > > >> your answer. > > > >> > > > >> Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it. > > > >> > > > >> There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm > > > >> animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more > > > >> just world. > > > >> > > > >> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the > > > >> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from > > > >> killing them. > > > >> > > > >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) > > > > > > > >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, > > > >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding > > > >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's > > > >going on here. > > > > > > You see how the Gonad wants us to think about "AR". He > > > certainly has no business criticising you for being a veg*n, when > > > he openly supports the elimination of livestock but you don't. > > > > He's in an especially nuts mood today > > from the posts I've seen. > > > No, Skanky. You are in an exceptionally strong LYING mood today. You > > LIED about what I was saying about Goober****wit's position. He DOES > > claim that existence per se is a "benefit" to farm animals, > > IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of life. I showed it to you. > > In my memory, he always has said > that life is a benefit to some animals. > SOME based on quality of life. I have SHOWED you a couple of instances where is is explicitly NOT making any mention of quality of life. Can't you read? > > > > >That's one of those debate topics > > > >that can get real tricky. Do the egg > > > >and sperm have any cognizance? > > > >Does existing begin then, or at > > > >conception? Or at a few months > > > >before full term? Or at birth? > > > >Contraversial topic. But whenever > > > >it is, if it's going to have a good > > > >life, then existing is a benefit. > > > > > > Of course, and a necessary one. So is life. Another thing > > > the Gonad can't explain is how something that is no longer > > > alive can benefit. That's because it can't, since life is THE > > > benefit which makes all others possible. Hard to believe > > > anyone is too stupid to understand that one imo, but, the > > > Gonad insists that he is. I don't believe it, and wonder why > > > he lies about that like several other things. > > > > He won't admit he's wrong. > > > I'm not wrong, Skanky. The very definition of "benefit" means I am > > right. A benefit is something that IMPROVES the welfare of an entity. > > Since the entity didn't exist prior to existing, and thus had no > > welfare to be improved, therefore existence (compared to never > > existing) is NOT a benefit. It simply cannot be one. > > If it's a good existance, a good life, > then getting to live was a benefit. No, it wasn't: It did not improve the entity's welfare. > Welfare has been improved from > nonexisting to existing happy. NO: there WAS no welfare in "nonexisting" to be improved upon. That's the whole point. Causing the welfare to exist is not making an improvement in it. > > > Because you're a stupid and stubborn pothead skank, you are not seeing > > the issue. The issue is existence COMPARED WITH never existing. > > Goober****wit for certain, and apparently you too, believe that > > existing is a "benefit" compared to never existing. It is not; it > > cannot be. EVEN IF the life an animal lives is nothing but bliss, its > > existence is NOT a benefit compared with never existing. > > That's such a fussy difference of > opinion. It's not "merely" a difference of opinion. Goober****wit's entire stupid ****witted argument hinges on it. > Do you really think it's worth > arguing whether existing is a benefit > technically? Not just "technically", you idiot; FUNDAMENTALLY. Existing is not a benefit: it does not cause an improvement in the entity's welfare. > I think we get everyone's > point. DH wants good lives for the > animals No, Goober****wit wants to beat up on "vegans" for not wanting to cause animals to exist. Goober****wit doesn't give a flying **** about quality of life, and never has; that's just his smokescreen. All he cares about is beating up on "vegans" for wanting to "deny life" to farm animals. > and you want to stress that > you don't feel existing is a benefit. > > > > >I would think it's obvious that you > > > >definitely consider the quality of > > > >life. I don't know either why he > > > >lies about that, but I've seem him > > > >do just that. > > > > > > I'm glad you don't mind admitting that you've noticed. > > > > I've noticed a lot of crazy things > > about him. > > > You have not noticed at any time that I've lied about Goober****wit not > > taking quality of life into account when he reaches his absurd > > conclusion about existence being a "benefit" compared to never > > existing. I haven't lied - Goober****wit does NOT take quality of > > life into account, as I have proved. > > I must have missed that proof, since > I'm not convinced. I've reposted his statement THREE ****ING TIMES today, you brain-dead pot-head. You just can't read. It's even in this one, below. Those are Goober****wit's words, below, that begin "I don't want to have to explain this every..." He continues (these are Goober****wit's words, you blind idiot): Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the most important benefits for any being. Right there, you BRAIN-DEAD ****: no reference to quality of life; existence, IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, is what Goober****wit considers to be the "most important" benefit to living entities. I didn't lie, you stupid ****: Goober****wit does NOT care about quality of life, just that the animals live. > > > > >> >>and that "vegans", who want to "deny life" to farm animals, > > > >> >>are doing "them" some kind of disservice. > > > >> > > > >> That was proven a lie probably even before he started > > > >> making a big deal about telling it, when I pointed out it's > > > >> no worse than the fact that we don't raise porcupines for > > > >> food. > > > > > > > >Luckily for porcupines, they can live > > > >well in the wild. > > > > > > Yes, it would be very impractical as well, which is why I > > > used them in particular as an example...hoping that would > > > help even someone as stupid and dishonest as the Gonad > > > acknowledge the truth. But no, he keeps on lying. I can't > > > really recall him telling the truth about anything, can you? > > > > I'll bet even he himself can't remember > > the last time he told the truth. > > > I haven't lied at all, you skanky ****. Here's what Goober****wit > > wrote that PROVES he isn't considering quality of life: > > > I don't want to have to explain this every time Rudy lies about that, > > but maybe I have a stock answer about it from years ago...no. Damn. > > Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the most important > > benefits for any being. > > > Do you see any reference to quality of life in that statement, you > > filthy skanky lying ****? > > Do you have a fear of dirty genitals > or something? As far as the reference > goes, he's made the quality of life > remark in enough other postings > to see the big picture. He just OMITTED making it there, stupid slag, just as I said he did. He is LYING in those other posts; it's just his smokescreen. I've been seeing his bullshit for close to six years now, and quality of life is IRRELEVANT to him. He only is trying to beat up on "vegans" for not wanting farm animals to exist, period. > > > Goober****wit does NOT take quality of life into account, and you KNOW > > it. He views existence (versus never existing) to be a "benefit" to > > farm animals IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life. His quote proves it. > > > Stop lying. > > > > > >Many domesticated > > > >animals can't and are in an almost > > > >symbiotic relationship with humans. > > > >We caused them to be tame and > > > >lose their wild skills, so it's up to > > > >us to keep their species living. > > > > > > > >> >>He also > > > >> >> thinks that by causing "them" to come into existence, > > > >> >> he, ****wit, is doing "them" some kind of good deed. > > > >> > > > >> I point out that "Animal Rights" would not provide > > > >> domestic animals with longer lives, better lives, rights, > > > >> or anything else. > > > >> I also point out that some farm animals benefit from > > > >> farming, so their lives should be given as much or > > > >> more consideration than their deaths. > > > > > > > >My mother (also a veggie) lives > > > >next to some people raising their > > > >own sheep for food. However, > > > >unlike many farms, they are being > > > >allowed a nice, fairly long, happy > > > >outdoors life. Although I don't > > > >like the intentional death at the > > > >end for them, they are at least > > > >living happy lives and to an older > > > >age than factory farmed ones. > > > >This is much much more kind > > > >and if someone's going to eat > > > >meat, it can't be done better > > > >than that. Their deaths will be > > > >as instant as possible for the > > > >least amount of suffering. > > > > > > I have heard that sheep, unlike other animals, > > > notice and become terrified when another is killed > > > near them. If it's not too much bother, would you > > > ask your mother to ask them about that, and see > > > if they take it into consideration if it's true? If you > > > do, please let us know what they say about it. > > > > I will ask her about that. > > > Don't bother. Your skanky mother is a lying slut just like you, and > > also an idiot. Is she a pothead? > > Wow, such insults towards someone > you've never even conversed with. She inflicted you onto the world, so she has a lot of demerits against her. > > > > >> >> He is wrong on both counts. > > > >> > > > >> We know "ARAs" want us to believe that, but what > > > >> they can't explain is why we should. > > > >> > > > >> >I have my own take on it. I think that > > > >> >there should not be a total elimination > > > >> >of domesticated animals. However, > > > >> >I would like to see a reduction of > > > >> >only those in bad conditions, even > > > >> >though that might be the majority > > > >> >of them. It's unrealistic and idealistic > > > >> >but it's what I would like to see. > > > >> > > > >> It's not unrealistic. If it came down to it, don't you > > > >> think most people would rather see farm animals > > > >> provided with decent lives than see them eliminated? > > > >> I am totally convinced that they would, and it sure > > > >> looks as though the gonads are terrified that they > > > >> would too. > > > > > > > >I agree that most would like to see > > > >good conditions, veg and meateater > > > >alike. > > > > > > Strangely not the supposedly ethical veg*ns. They > > > would rather see more deaths per serving from veggies, > > > even when there could be far fewer deaths per serving > > > from grass raised meat and milk, as well as providing > > > decent lives for livestock. These people are nothing > > > to look up to, and in some ways worse than meat > > > consumers who don't care at all. > > > > My opinions are too off track to be > > ever considered a vegan in it's > > > ITS, stupid illiterate skank > > That really upsets you, doesn't it. Illiterate people pretending they're knowledgeable and intelligent is what upsets me. > > > original definition. I no longer feel > > that I am responsible for cds > > > No one cares what you "feel". You ARE responsible for them. That is > > simply a fact. Your feelings about it don't matter. > > I'm not responsible for farming cds. You are responsible. It's a secondary responsibility, but it is responsibility all the same, no matter how you feel about it. This was settled long ago. > > > > > > >I can't imagine anyone wanting > > > >extinction though, especially since > > > >there are (some) good homes for > > > >them. > > > > > > Agreed. Do away with the suffering, not the animals. > > > > Your arguments on that have made > > me reconsider whether I'm ever > > going to give up eggs. > > > Of course: if there's some way for you to lie and rationalize your way > > to hedonistic pleasure, you'll do it. > > How dare I want to see happiness. You want your happiness no matter how many live you damage. >=20 > > Stupid whore. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> > wrote in message ... >> [..] >> >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) >> > >> >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, >> >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding >> >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's >> >going on here. >> >> Harrison is trying to get you to believe that, contrary >> to what Jon says, Jon happens to be an ARA and >> sympathetic to their proposition concerning livestock >> abolition. Though it might be tempting to go along with >> Harrison for the purpose of annoying Jon, it would be >> a mistake to actually believe him. > >I take everyone here with a grain of >salt. The quotes above though, even >though partial really stuck out as >being from Jon/rudy. It confused me >at first because I couldn't understand >why DH was sounding like Rudy. The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison continues to use you and deceive you in this way. >> Jon is not an ARA, and nor is he sympathetic to any >> proposition which promotes the abolition of livestock. >> Unlike Harrison who misrepresents Jon's position by >> presenting only his partial quotes here, Jon meticulously >> assembles Harrison's quotes in full and with a link for >> those who might want to verify the accuracy of them. > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA, but it >can be misleading when he or Dutch >tell people that they MUST believe this >or that. It comes across sounding like >they believe it themselves and are trying >to convince others. They, or rather Jon does believe in what he's saying and will try to convince others into agreeing with him. That's only to be expected, surely. However, as I mentioned earlier, Jon doesn't promote animal rights or the abolition of livestock farming. Harrison is lying to you about that. >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> to even those scores up a bit. > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >isn't. He called me marginally >employed and I'm not. Some>of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >not lying, then he really believes >it. He does dishonest things with >people's quotes but that's only >similar to a lie. Good luck with >settling the score. I'll be an avid >spectator. Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing nothing to help put the record straight. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> > wrote in message ... >> [..] >> >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) >> > >> >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, >> >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding >> >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's >> >going on here. >> >> Harrison is trying to get you to believe that, contrary >> to what Jon says, Jon happens to be an ARA and >> sympathetic to their proposition concerning livestock >> abolition. Though it might be tempting to go along with >> Harrison for the purpose of annoying Jon, it would be >> a mistake to actually believe him. > >I take everyone here with a grain of >salt. The quotes above though, even >though partial really stuck out as >being from Jon/rudy. It confused me >at first because I couldn't understand >why DH was sounding like Rudy. The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison continues to use you and deceive you in this way. >> Jon is not an ARA, and nor is he sympathetic to any >> proposition which promotes the abolition of livestock. >> Unlike Harrison who misrepresents Jon's position by >> presenting only his partial quotes here, Jon meticulously >> assembles Harrison's quotes in full and with a link for >> those who might want to verify the accuracy of them. > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA, but it >can be misleading when he or Dutch >tell people that they MUST believe this >or that. It comes across sounding like >they believe it themselves and are trying >to convince others. They, or rather Jon does believe in what he's saying and will try to convince others into agreeing with him. That's only to be expected, surely. However, as I mentioned earlier, Jon doesn't promote animal rights or the abolition of livestock farming. Harrison is lying to you about that. >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> to even those scores up a bit. > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >isn't. He called me marginally >employed and I'm not. Some>of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >not lying, then he really believes >it. He does dishonest things with >people's quotes but that's only >similar to a lie. Good luck with >settling the score. I'll be an avid >spectator. Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing nothing to help put the record straight. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:02 -0500, "Scented > wrote: > >> > wrote in message ... > >> [..] > >> >> (a collection of gonadal ng quotes) > >> > > >> >Whoa. Until I read that last bit, > >> >I was thinking, omg, he's sounding > >> >just like Rudy/JonBall, what's > >> >going on here. > >> > >> Harrison is trying to get you to believe that, contrary > >> to what Jon says, Jon happens to be an ARA and > >> sympathetic to their proposition concerning livestock > >> abolition. Though it might be tempting to go along with > >> Harrison for the purpose of annoying Jon, it would be > >> a mistake to actually believe him. > > > >I take everyone here with a grain of > >salt. The quotes above though, even > >though partial really stuck out as > >being from Jon/rudy. It confused me > >at first because I couldn't understand > >why DH was sounding like Rudy. > > The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly > only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, > and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those > misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison > continues to use you and deceive you in this way. I will take care when reading his quotes then, but I don't want to get caught up in the fights between you and DH. It sounds corny, but so far I like the both of you. You bothmake some interesting points, etc. > >> Jon is not an ARA, and nor is he sympathetic to any > >> proposition which promotes the abolition of livestock. > >> Unlike Harrison who misrepresents Jon's position by > >> presenting only his partial quotes here, Jon meticulously > >> assembles Harrison's quotes in full and with a link for > >> those who might want to verify the accuracy of them. > > > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA, but it > >can be misleading when he or Dutch > >tell people that they MUST believe this > >or that. It comes across sounding like > >they believe it themselves and are trying > >to convince others. > > They, or rather Jon does believe in what he's saying and > will try to convince others into agreeing with him. That's > only to be expected, surely. However, as I mentioned > earlier, Jon doesn't promote animal rights or the abolition > of livestock farming. Harrison is lying to you about that. > > >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first > >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've > >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. > >> There have been times when I've gone after him for > >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the > >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or > >> misquote from Harrison. > > >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice > >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, > >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find > >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've > >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one > >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan > >> to even those scores up a bit. > > > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she > >isn't. He called me marginally > >employed and I'm not. Some> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's > >not lying, then he really believes > >it. He does dishonest things with > >people's quotes but that's only > >similar to a lie. Good luck with > >settling the score. I'll be an avid > >spectator. > > Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > nothing to help put the record straight. As far as Jon claiming that DH didn't consider the animals, I'm still fairly new here and haven't seen all of the past posts. His present position considers the animals, even though it's not mentioned in every sentence. He frequently mentions about some benefitting and some not. Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't care about the animals welfare. So far, from what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's either wrong or lying. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>I don't believe Jon to be an ARA Why? He can't present any decent examples of his opposition to "AR". Dutch can't either. But if you can, please do. >but it >can be misleading when he or Dutch >tell people that they MUST believe this >or that. It comes across sounding like >they believe it themselves and are trying >to convince others. They are. I'm not going to be fooled into believing they use arguments they don't agree with. If you believe they would, then please explain why. >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> to even those scores up a bit. > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >isn't. He called me marginally >employed and I'm not. Some>of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >not lying, then he really believes >it. It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would have to be if he's not lying. >He does dishonest things with >people's quotes but that's only >similar to a lie. Good luck with >settling the score. I'll be an avid >spectator. It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't really have anything against him until he lied about this, but he has proven himself no better than the Gonad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>I don't believe Jon to be an ARA Why? He can't present any decent examples of his opposition to "AR". Dutch can't either. But if you can, please do. >but it >can be misleading when he or Dutch >tell people that they MUST believe this >or that. It comes across sounding like >they believe it themselves and are trying >to convince others. They are. I'm not going to be fooled into believing they use arguments they don't agree with. If you believe they would, then please explain why. >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> to even those scores up a bit. > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >isn't. He called me marginally >employed and I'm not. Some>of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >not lying, then he really believes >it. It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would have to be if he's not lying. >He does dishonest things with >people's quotes but that's only >similar to a lie. Good luck with >settling the score. I'll be an avid >spectator. It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't really have anything against him until he lied about this, but he has proven himself no better than the Gonad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly >only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, That's what the Gonad does to me all the time, and you know it. Meaning that you go along with his lies, but you hate it when I point out that him using "AR" arguments against the suggestion that we promote decent AW, shows that he favors the elimination of farm animals over providing decent AW. The Gonad uses "AR" arguments against my suggestion, and you can't convince me he's stupid enough to use arguments that he disagrees with. >and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those >misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison >continues to use you and deceive you in this way. She has pointed out lies the Gonad tells about me. She is in favor of decent AW. I'm in favor of decent AW. The rest of you support "AR" over AW. [...] >Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >yet to see him lie about Harrison's position That's a lie and we both know it. Up until now I thought of you with a lot less contempt than I now learn you deserve, but you've now proven youreself no better than your Gonad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly >only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, That's what the Gonad does to me all the time, and you know it. Meaning that you go along with his lies, but you hate it when I point out that him using "AR" arguments against the suggestion that we promote decent AW, shows that he favors the elimination of farm animals over providing decent AW. The Gonad uses "AR" arguments against my suggestion, and you can't convince me he's stupid enough to use arguments that he disagrees with. >and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those >misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison >continues to use you and deceive you in this way. She has pointed out lies the Gonad tells about me. She is in favor of decent AW. I'm in favor of decent AW. The rest of you support "AR" over AW. [...] >Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >yet to see him lie about Harrison's position That's a lie and we both know it. Up until now I thought of you with a lot less contempt than I now learn you deserve, but you've now proven youreself no better than your Gonad. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid lying no-value cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly > >only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, > > That's what Canoza does to me all the time, Nope. Not ONCE, Goober****wit. I quote you fully, accurately, in context, and with links to the original in Google. YOU take my quotes out of context, leave out key parts of sentences, and even change the punctuation to make it appear I am speaking on my own account when I am not. > and you know it. No, Goober****wit. He knows *exactly* the opposite: that's why he wrote what he wrote. > [...] The Gonad uses "AR" arguments against my > suggestion, No, Goober****wit, I don't. And YOU know it. I point out that you have mischaracterized what "ar" is saying, and that YOUR ****wittery is no opposition to "ar" at all. > > >and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those > >misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison > >continues to use you and deceive you in this way. > > She has pointed out lies Canoza tells about me. No, Goober****wit, she hasn't, because I haven't told any. YOU have lied about me by misquoting me. > > [...] > >Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > >yet to see him lie about Harrison's position > > That's a lie and we both know it. That's NOT a lie, Goober****wit, and we ALL know it. I have not lied about your position. The FAQ - I think I'm overdue to repost it - contains your quotes accurately, in full, and in context. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit David Harrison, stupid lying no-value cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly > >only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, > > That's what Canoza does to me all the time, Nope. Not ONCE, Goober****wit. I quote you fully, accurately, in context, and with links to the original in Google. YOU take my quotes out of context, leave out key parts of sentences, and even change the punctuation to make it appear I am speaking on my own account when I am not. > and you know it. No, Goober****wit. He knows *exactly* the opposite: that's why he wrote what he wrote. > [...] The Gonad uses "AR" arguments against my > suggestion, No, Goober****wit, I don't. And YOU know it. I point out that you have mischaracterized what "ar" is saying, and that YOUR ****wittery is no opposition to "ar" at all. > > >and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those > >misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison > >continues to use you and deceive you in this way. > > She has pointed out lies Canoza tells about me. No, Goober****wit, she hasn't, because I haven't told any. YOU have lied about me by misquoting me. > > [...] > >Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > >yet to see him lie about Harrison's position > > That's a lie and we both know it. That's NOT a lie, Goober****wit, and we ALL know it. I have not lied about your position. The FAQ - I think I'm overdue to repost it - contains your quotes accurately, in full, and in context. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... [..] >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing >> nothing to help put the record straight. > >As far as Jon claiming that DH >didn't consider the animals, I'm >still fairly new here and haven't seen >all of the past posts. His present >position considers the animals, >even though it's not mentioned in >every sentence. Everyone's position here considers animals, else we wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is that we should consider future non-existent animals. So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't consider animals, he is dead right. >He frequently >mentions about some benefitting >and some not. Jon is trying to >convince me that DH doesn't >care about the animals welfare. Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and believes that had he not bred them for that purpose they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument here, not animal welfare itself. Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot benefit from any kind of welfare. These two considerations show that Jon is correct; Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed out to him many times. [start] > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you "stun" one bird before > >> >the other one tears into him with its claws, or worse, with the razors > >> >you've strapped on to them? > > > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > I've answered the same thing in the past. No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. >The cocks can quit > fighting whenever they want. Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to fight, before they're slashed? >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > no such option. Food doesn't get to run away. > Why bring it up in this discussion? To expose you as a sick hypocrite. [end] Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw >So far, from what I've read, I >have to disagree with Jon. He's >either wrong or lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... [..] >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing >> nothing to help put the record straight. > >As far as Jon claiming that DH >didn't consider the animals, I'm >still fairly new here and haven't seen >all of the past posts. His present >position considers the animals, >even though it's not mentioned in >every sentence. Everyone's position here considers animals, else we wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is that we should consider future non-existent animals. So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't consider animals, he is dead right. >He frequently >mentions about some benefitting >and some not. Jon is trying to >convince me that DH doesn't >care about the animals welfare. Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and believes that had he not bred them for that purpose they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument here, not animal welfare itself. Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot benefit from any kind of welfare. These two considerations show that Jon is correct; Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed out to him many times. [start] > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you "stun" one bird before > >> >the other one tears into him with its claws, or worse, with the razors > >> >you've strapped on to them? > > > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > I've answered the same thing in the past. No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. >The cocks can quit > fighting whenever they want. Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to fight, before they're slashed? >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > no such option. Food doesn't get to run away. > Why bring it up in this discussion? To expose you as a sick hypocrite. [end] Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw >So far, from what I've read, I >have to disagree with Jon. He's >either wrong or lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit David Harrison, clumsy lying stupid cracker, lied:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA > > Why? He can't present any decent > examples of his opposition to "AR". I present it all the time. What I don't do is respond to your cynical and time-wasting demands that I repost it. The ONLY reason you call me an "ara", Goober****wit, is because you're unhappy that I've demolished your goober****witted "getting to experience life" crapola. I've demolished it, Goober****wit, because it is NOT a coherent and logical criticism of "ar", and it makes other opponents of "ar" look guilty by implication because it appears they're siding with you by silence. I have felt it necessary to point out that your ****WITTERY is not a valid and meaningful critique of "ar", and it makes you mad, so you lie about me. > > >but it > >can be misleading when he or Dutch > >tell people that they MUST believe this > >or that. It comes across sounding like > >they believe it themselves and are trying > >to convince others. > > They are. We're not, and you know it. So does she. > > >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first > >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've > >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. > >> There have been times when I've gone after him for > >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the > >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or > >> misquote from Harrison. > >> > >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice > >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, > >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find > >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've > >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one > >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan > >> to even those scores up a bit. > > > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she > >isn't. He called me marginally > >employed and I'm not. Some> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's > >not lying, then he really believes > >it. > > It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would > have to be if he's not lying. You don't think I'm stupid at all, Goober****wit. You're just trying to be insulting. > > >He does dishonest things with > >people's quotes but that's only > >similar to a lie. Good luck with > >settling the score. I'll be an avid > >spectator. > > It's another lie. You've seen some of his > obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. I haven't lied about you, Goober****wit. You ARE the only goober he the very essence of ignorant, bad-food-eating, Southern cracker gooberism. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit David Harrison, clumsy lying stupid cracker, lied:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA > > Why? He can't present any decent > examples of his opposition to "AR". I present it all the time. What I don't do is respond to your cynical and time-wasting demands that I repost it. The ONLY reason you call me an "ara", Goober****wit, is because you're unhappy that I've demolished your goober****witted "getting to experience life" crapola. I've demolished it, Goober****wit, because it is NOT a coherent and logical criticism of "ar", and it makes other opponents of "ar" look guilty by implication because it appears they're siding with you by silence. I have felt it necessary to point out that your ****WITTERY is not a valid and meaningful critique of "ar", and it makes you mad, so you lie about me. > > >but it > >can be misleading when he or Dutch > >tell people that they MUST believe this > >or that. It comes across sounding like > >they believe it themselves and are trying > >to convince others. > > They are. We're not, and you know it. So does she. > > >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first > >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've > >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. > >> There have been times when I've gone after him for > >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the > >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or > >> misquote from Harrison. > >> > >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice > >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, > >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find > >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've > >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one > >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan > >> to even those scores up a bit. > > > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she > >isn't. He called me marginally > >employed and I'm not. Some> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's > >not lying, then he really believes > >it. > > It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would > have to be if he's not lying. You don't think I'm stupid at all, Goober****wit. You're just trying to be insulting. > > >He does dishonest things with > >people's quotes but that's only > >similar to a lie. Good luck with > >settling the score. I'll be an avid > >spectator. > > It's another lie. You've seen some of his > obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. I haven't lied about you, Goober****wit. You ARE the only goober he the very essence of ignorant, bad-food-eating, Southern cracker gooberism. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA > > Why? He can't present any decent > examples of his opposition to "AR". > Dutch can't either. But if you can, please > do. I think if they were really ARAs, then they would not be meat eaters, since within the AR movement, that's an essential, even when the rest is debated. Sometimes Jon's posts are worded in such a manner that it appears to be his beliefs, but other times he makes it a bit more clear that it's what he thinks others believe. When he's wrong about someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to believe them. > >but it > >can be misleading when he or Dutch > >tell people that they MUST believe this > >or that. It comes across sounding like > >they believe it themselves and are trying > >to convince others. > > They are. I'm not going to be fooled into > believing they use arguments they don't > agree with. If you believe they would, then > please explain why. I think they want to set up an extremist view so that they can knock it down as extremist. They like to jump on anyone who claims concern for the animals and tell them they are not doing it right. They like to say that if you really believed such 'n such, you'd do this or that. That's all my experience with them so far. > >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first > >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've > >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. > >> There have been times when I've gone after him for > >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the > >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or > >> misquote from Harrison. > >> > >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice > >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, > >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find > >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've > >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one > >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan > >> to even those scores up a bit. > > > >Jon called my mom a slut, and she > >isn't. He called me marginally > >employed and I'm not. Some> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's > >not lying, then he really believes > >it. > > It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would > have to be if he's not lying. True. > >He does dishonest things with > >people's quotes but that's only > >similar to a lie. Good luck with > >settling the score. I'll be an avid > >spectator. > > It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's > obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no > way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't > really have anything against him until he lied about > this, but he has proven himself no better than the > Gonad. I'm stepping out from the fight between you and Derek. You're both ok in my view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't believe him to lie, then that's just the way it is. I have often seen him change a person's quotes in order to change the context and meaning. That's as good as a lie, the way he does it. He has many times claimed I believe things I don't. Those are lies too. Unless, of course, in the unlikely situation of him actually believing what he types. Then it's not technically a lie, I guess. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
[..] > As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >believe him to lie, then that's just the >way it is. You've completely ignored the part where I mentioned Jon does lie about off-topic personal matters, and then concluded that I don't believe Jon to be a liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
[..] > As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >believe him to lie, then that's just the >way it is. You've completely ignored the part where I mentioned Jon does lie about off-topic personal matters, and then concluded that I don't believe Jon to be a liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > [..] > >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > >> nothing to help put the record straight. > > > >As far as Jon claiming that DH > >didn't consider the animals, I'm > >still fairly new here and haven't seen > >all of the past posts. His present > >position considers the animals, > >even though it's not mentioned in > >every sentence. > > Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > that we should consider future non-existent animals. > So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > consider animals, he is dead right. > > >He frequently > >mentions about some benefitting > >and some not. Jon is trying to > >convince me that DH doesn't > >care about the animals welfare. > > Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > here, not animal welfare itself. > > Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > benefit from any kind of welfare. > > These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > out to him many times. > > [start] > > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you "stun" one bird before > > >> >the other one tears into him with its claws, or worse, with the razors > > >> >you've strapped on to them? > > > > > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > > > I've answered the same thing in the past. > > No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting cocks before > they were slashed up, until this thread. > > >The cocks can quit > > fighting whenever they want. > > Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to fight, before they're > slashed? > > >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > > no such option. > > Food doesn't get to run away. > > > Why bring it up in this discussion? > > To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > [end] > Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > > >So far, from what I've read, I > >have to disagree with Jon. He's > >either wrong or lying. I disagree with the raising of fighting cocks. I think they live miserable lives and suffer at death. If DH does breed them, then I'm against it, but like I said, I don't agree 100% with anyone. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > [..] > > As far as seeing Jon lie, I have > >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't > >believe him to lie, then that's just the > >way it is. > > You've completely ignored the part where I mentioned > Jon does lie about off-topic personal matters, and then > concluded that I don't believe Jon to be a liar. What I meant was that you don't believe him to be lying about other things. I should have made that more clear. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> [..] >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. >> > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen >> >all of the past posts. His present >> >position considers the animals, >> >even though it's not mentioned in >> >every sentence. >> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't >> consider animals, he is dead right. >> >> >He frequently >> >mentions about some benefitting >> >and some not. Jon is trying to >> >convince me that DH doesn't >> >care about the animals welfare. >> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument >> here, not animal welfare itself. >> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot >> benefit from any kind of welfare. >> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed >> out to him many times. >> >> [start] >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've >> > >> >strapped on to them? >> > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! >> > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. >> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. >> >> >The cocks can quit >> > fighting whenever they want. >> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to >> fight, before they're slashed? >> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have >> > no such option. >> >> Food doesn't get to run away. >> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? >> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. >> [end] >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw >> >> >So far, from what I've read, I >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's >> >either wrong or lying. > >I disagree with the raising of fighting >cocks. I think they live miserable >lives and suffer at death. If DH does >breed them, then I'm against it, but >like I said, I don't agree 100% with >anyone. Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, so if we go back to your original statement where you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position on animal welfare; "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't care about the animals welfare. So far, from what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's either wrong or lying." we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> [..] >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. >> > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen >> >all of the past posts. His present >> >position considers the animals, >> >even though it's not mentioned in >> >every sentence. >> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't >> consider animals, he is dead right. >> >> >He frequently >> >mentions about some benefitting >> >and some not. Jon is trying to >> >convince me that DH doesn't >> >care about the animals welfare. >> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument >> here, not animal welfare itself. >> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot >> benefit from any kind of welfare. >> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed >> out to him many times. >> >> [start] >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've >> > >> >strapped on to them? >> > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! >> > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. >> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. >> >> >The cocks can quit >> > fighting whenever they want. >> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to >> fight, before they're slashed? >> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have >> > no such option. >> >> Food doesn't get to run away. >> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? >> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. >> [end] >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw >> >> >So far, from what I've read, I >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's >> >either wrong or lying. > >I disagree with the raising of fighting >cocks. I think they live miserable >lives and suffer at death. If DH does >breed them, then I'm against it, but >like I said, I don't agree 100% with >anyone. Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, so if we go back to your original statement where you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position on animal welfare; "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't care about the animals welfare. So far, from what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's either wrong or lying." we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:39:25 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> >> [..] >> > As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >> >believe him to lie, then that's just the >> >way it is. >> >> You've completely ignored the part where I mentioned >> Jon does lie about off-topic personal matters, and then >> concluded that I don't believe Jon to be a liar. > >What I meant was that you don't >believe him to be lying about other >things. I should have made that >more clear. What I mean to say is that while Jon does lie, I've yet to see him lie concerning Harrison's position or intentionally misquote him. Jon edits my posts and does everything he feels is necessary to get me to shut up, and while he has been known to do the same with others here I've yet to see him do the same with Harrison. I've asked Harrison many times for examples but he fails to ever provide them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:39:25 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented > wrote: >> >> [..] >> > As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >> >believe him to lie, then that's just the >> >way it is. >> >> You've completely ignored the part where I mentioned >> Jon does lie about off-topic personal matters, and then >> concluded that I don't believe Jon to be a liar. > >What I meant was that you don't >believe him to be lying about other >things. I should have made that >more clear. What I mean to say is that while Jon does lie, I've yet to see him lie concerning Harrison's position or intentionally misquote him. Jon edits my posts and does everything he feels is necessary to get me to shut up, and while he has been known to do the same with others here I've yet to see him do the same with Harrison. I've asked Harrison many times for examples but he fails to ever provide them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message
... > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > wrote: > >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> [..] > >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. > >> > > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH > >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm > >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen > >> >all of the past posts. His present > >> >position considers the animals, > >> >even though it's not mentioned in > >> >every sentence. > >> > >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. > >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > >> consider animals, he is dead right. > >> > >> >He frequently > >> >mentions about some benefitting > >> >and some not. Jon is trying to > >> >convince me that DH doesn't > >> >care about the animals welfare. > >> > >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > >> here, not animal welfare itself. > >> > >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > >> benefit from any kind of welfare. > >> > >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > >> out to him many times. > >> > >> [start] > >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you > >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him > >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've > >> > >> >strapped on to them? > >> > > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > >> > > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. > >> > >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting > >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. > >> > >> >The cocks can quit > >> > fighting whenever they want. > >> > >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to > >> fight, before they're slashed? > >> > >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > >> > no such option. > >> > >> Food doesn't get to run away. > >> > >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? > >> > >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > >> [end] > >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > >> > >> >So far, from what I've read, I > >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's > >> >either wrong or lying. > > > >I disagree with the raising of fighting > >cocks. I think they live miserable > >lives and suffer at death. If DH does > >breed them, then I'm against it, but > >like I said, I don't agree 100% with > >anyone. > > Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, > so if we go back to your original statement where > you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position > on animal welfare; > > "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't > care about the animals welfare. So far, from > what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's > either wrong or lying." > > we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. If he really does breed them, then I am very against that and am willing to debate the issue. I consider those chickens to be in the category of miserable lives. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > > >"Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > > wrote: > > >> >"Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > >> [..] > > >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > > >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > > >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > > >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > > >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. > > >> > > > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH > > >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm > > >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen > > >> >all of the past posts. His present > > >> >position considers the animals, > > >> >even though it's not mentioned in > > >> >every sentence. > > >> > > >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > > >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > > >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. > > >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > > >> consider animals, he is dead right. > > >> > > >> >He frequently > > >> >mentions about some benefitting > > >> >and some not. Jon is trying to > > >> >convince me that DH doesn't > > >> >care about the animals welfare. > > >> > > >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > > >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > > >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > > >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > > >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > > >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > > >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > > >> here, not animal welfare itself. > > >> > > >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > > >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > > >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > > >> benefit from any kind of welfare. > > >> > > >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > > >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > > >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > > >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > > >> out to him many times. > > >> > > >> [start] > > >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you > > >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him > > >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've > > >> > >> >strapped on to them? > > >> > > > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > >> > > > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. > > >> > > >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting > > >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. > > >> > > >> >The cocks can quit > > >> > fighting whenever they want. > > >> > > >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to > > >> fight, before they're slashed? > > >> > > >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > > >> > no such option. > > >> > > >> Food doesn't get to run away. > > >> > > >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? > > >> > > >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > > >> [end] > > >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > > >> > > >> >So far, from what I've read, I > > >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's > > >> >either wrong or lying. > > > > > >I disagree with the raising of fighting > > >cocks. I think they live miserable > > >lives and suffer at death. If DH does > > >breed them, then I'm against it, but > > >like I said, I don't agree 100% with > > >anyone. > > > > Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, > > so if we go back to your original statement where > > you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position > > on animal welfare; > > > > "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't > > care about the animals welfare. So far, from > > what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's > > either wrong or lying." > > > > we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. > > If he really does breed them, then I > am very against that and am willing > to debate the issue. I consider > those chickens to be in the category > of miserable lives. I think he may have said he no longer does. He's such a chronic liar, I suspect he still does. In any case, at the time, he justified it by saying that "at least" the fighting cocks "got to experience life". In other words, ONCE AGAIN, he considers existence _per se_, IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be a benefit. Here are two things he wrote from back in October of 2000: If people didn't fight them, they wouldn't exist. This may be tough for you, but consider that if you fought chickens, there might be 100+ birds in your yard who owed the fact that they were alive to the fact that you fought chickens. But you don't, so they don't. But on yards where they do, the stags and cocks go off to fight for the continued existence of the yard they are a member of. Goober****wit - 13 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" Animals *do* "get to live" as a result of cockfighting. That is why game chickens exist. Goober****wit - 14 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" Here's an exchange from a different thread, a few days later: Some guy named Edwin (an idiot, as I recall, but this question was okay) >Why shouldn't "game chickens" become extinct? Goober****wit: Why should they? Just because it bothers YOU that they have to fight for their lives? It doesn't bother them, and that's what matters, not what bothers YOU. You don't even know enough about it to form a worthwhile opinion, and you believe and even promote lies about it. Here's another *great* one that really shows Goober****wit considers "getting to experience life", IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be the major issue for him: They [fighting cocks] fight for their own lives as well as for the *much greater* number of hens and chicks who will never see a "pit", but still depend on cockfighting for their lives. I know you're really dense and don't get lots of things, Skanky, so I'll explain that last one to you. In the thread, Goober****wit "pointed out" (he sure likes to use that a lot) that not only do the fighting cocks themselves "only get to live" because they have been bred to fight, but he went on to "point out" that there are lots of other chickens, the hens from which the cocks are bred and the chicks, who also "only get to live" because of the presence of cockfighting. It was very clear if you followed the whole thread, which I did at the time, that Goober****wit considered the brutal ending of life for fighting cocks to be "worth it" because not only did the cocks themselves "get to experience life", but so also did quite a lot of hens and female chicks who otherwise would have "missed out". That whole thread was a hoot. He kept saying that the cocks are not "forced" to fight, that they can stop any time they want. Of course, what he *wasn't* saying is that any cock who stops fighting is immediately killed and thrown away. He was trying to portray them as having a "choice" when they really don't have a choice at all. And he was trying to justify the whole thing by regurgitating his already foul and rotting refrain of "at least they 'got to experience life'." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > > >"Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > > wrote: > > >> >"Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > >> [..] > > >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > > >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > > >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > > >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > > >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. > > >> > > > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH > > >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm > > >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen > > >> >all of the past posts. His present > > >> >position considers the animals, > > >> >even though it's not mentioned in > > >> >every sentence. > > >> > > >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > > >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > > >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. > > >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > > >> consider animals, he is dead right. > > >> > > >> >He frequently > > >> >mentions about some benefitting > > >> >and some not. Jon is trying to > > >> >convince me that DH doesn't > > >> >care about the animals welfare. > > >> > > >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > > >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > > >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > > >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > > >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > > >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > > >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > > >> here, not animal welfare itself. > > >> > > >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > > >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > > >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > > >> benefit from any kind of welfare. > > >> > > >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > > >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > > >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > > >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > > >> out to him many times. > > >> > > >> [start] > > >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you > > >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him > > >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've > > >> > >> >strapped on to them? > > >> > > > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > >> > > > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. > > >> > > >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting > > >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. > > >> > > >> >The cocks can quit > > >> > fighting whenever they want. > > >> > > >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to > > >> fight, before they're slashed? > > >> > > >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > > >> > no such option. > > >> > > >> Food doesn't get to run away. > > >> > > >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? > > >> > > >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > > >> [end] > > >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > > >> > > >> >So far, from what I've read, I > > >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's > > >> >either wrong or lying. > > > > > >I disagree with the raising of fighting > > >cocks. I think they live miserable > > >lives and suffer at death. If DH does > > >breed them, then I'm against it, but > > >like I said, I don't agree 100% with > > >anyone. > > > > Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, > > so if we go back to your original statement where > > you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position > > on animal welfare; > > > > "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't > > care about the animals welfare. So far, from > > what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's > > either wrong or lying." > > > > we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. > > If he really does breed them, then I > am very against that and am willing > to debate the issue. I consider > those chickens to be in the category > of miserable lives. I think he may have said he no longer does. He's such a chronic liar, I suspect he still does. In any case, at the time, he justified it by saying that "at least" the fighting cocks "got to experience life". In other words, ONCE AGAIN, he considers existence _per se_, IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be a benefit. Here are two things he wrote from back in October of 2000: If people didn't fight them, they wouldn't exist. This may be tough for you, but consider that if you fought chickens, there might be 100+ birds in your yard who owed the fact that they were alive to the fact that you fought chickens. But you don't, so they don't. But on yards where they do, the stags and cocks go off to fight for the continued existence of the yard they are a member of. Goober****wit - 13 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" Animals *do* "get to live" as a result of cockfighting. That is why game chickens exist. Goober****wit - 14 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" Here's an exchange from a different thread, a few days later: Some guy named Edwin (an idiot, as I recall, but this question was okay) >Why shouldn't "game chickens" become extinct? Goober****wit: Why should they? Just because it bothers YOU that they have to fight for their lives? It doesn't bother them, and that's what matters, not what bothers YOU. You don't even know enough about it to form a worthwhile opinion, and you believe and even promote lies about it. Here's another *great* one that really shows Goober****wit considers "getting to experience life", IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be the major issue for him: They [fighting cocks] fight for their own lives as well as for the *much greater* number of hens and chicks who will never see a "pit", but still depend on cockfighting for their lives. I know you're really dense and don't get lots of things, Skanky, so I'll explain that last one to you. In the thread, Goober****wit "pointed out" (he sure likes to use that a lot) that not only do the fighting cocks themselves "only get to live" because they have been bred to fight, but he went on to "point out" that there are lots of other chickens, the hens from which the cocks are bred and the chicks, who also "only get to live" because of the presence of cockfighting. It was very clear if you followed the whole thread, which I did at the time, that Goober****wit considered the brutal ending of life for fighting cocks to be "worth it" because not only did the cocks themselves "get to experience life", but so also did quite a lot of hens and female chicks who otherwise would have "missed out". That whole thread was a hoot. He kept saying that the cocks are not "forced" to fight, that they can stop any time they want. Of course, what he *wasn't* saying is that any cock who stops fighting is immediately killed and thrown away. He was trying to portray them as having a "choice" when they really don't have a choice at all. And he was trying to justify the whole thing by regurgitating his already foul and rotting refrain of "at least they 'got to experience life'." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > > > >"Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > > > wrote: > > > >> >"Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >> [..] > > > >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > > > >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > > > >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > > > >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > > > >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. > > > >> > > > > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH > > > >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm > > > >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen > > > >> >all of the past posts. His present > > > >> >position considers the animals, > > > >> >even though it's not mentioned in > > > >> >every sentence. > > > >> > > > >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > > > >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > > > >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. > > > >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > > > >> consider animals, he is dead right. > > > >> > > > >> >He frequently > > > >> >mentions about some benefitting > > > >> >and some not. Jon is trying to > > > >> >convince me that DH doesn't > > > >> >care about the animals welfare. > > > >> > > > >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > > > >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > > > >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > > > >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > > > >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > > > >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > > > >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > > > >> here, not animal welfare itself. > > > >> > > > >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > > > >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > > > >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > > > >> benefit from any kind of welfare. > > > >> > > > >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > > > >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > > > >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > > > >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > > > >> out to him many times. > > > >> > > > >> [start] > > > >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you > > > >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him > > > >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've > > > >> > >> >strapped on to them? > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > > >> > > > > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. > > > >> > > > >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting > > > >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. > > > >> > > > >> >The cocks can quit > > > >> > fighting whenever they want. > > > >> > > > >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to > > > >> fight, before they're slashed? > > > >> > > > >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > > > >> > no such option. > > > >> > > > >> Food doesn't get to run away. > > > >> > > > >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? > > > >> > > > >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > > > >> [end] > > > >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > > > >> > > > >> >So far, from what I've read, I > > > >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's > > > >> >either wrong or lying. > > > > > > > >I disagree with the raising of fighting > > > >cocks. I think they live miserable > > > >lives and suffer at death. If DH does > > > >breed them, then I'm against it, but > > > >like I said, I don't agree 100% with > > > >anyone. > > > > > > Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, > > > so if we go back to your original statement where > > > you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position > > > on animal welfare; > > > > > > "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't > > > care about the animals welfare. So far, from > > > what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's > > > either wrong or lying." > > > > > > we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. > > > > If he really does breed them, then I > > am very against that and am willing > > to debate the issue. I consider > > those chickens to be in the category > > of miserable lives. > > I think he may have said he no longer does. He's such a chronic liar, > I suspect he still does. > > In any case, at the time, he justified it by saying that "at least" the > fighting cocks "got to experience life". In other words, ONCE AGAIN, > he considers existence _per se_, IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be > a benefit. > > Here are two things he wrote from back in October of 2000: > > If people didn't fight them, they wouldn't exist. > This may be tough for you, but consider that if you fought chickens, > > there might be 100+ birds in your yard who owed the fact that they > were alive to the fact that you fought chickens. But you don't, so > they don't. But on yards where they do, the stags and cocks go off > to fight for the continued existence of the yard they are a member > of. > > Goober****wit - 13 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" > > > Animals *do* "get to live" as a result of cockfighting. That is why > game chickens exist. > > Goober****wit - 14 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" > > > > Here's an exchange from a different thread, a few days later: > > Some guy named Edwin (an idiot, as I recall, but this question was > okay) > >Why shouldn't "game chickens" become extinct? > > > Goober****wit: > Why should they? Just because it bothers YOU that they have > to fight for their lives? It doesn't bother them, and that's what > matters, not what bothers YOU. You don't even know enough > about it to form a worthwhile opinion, and you believe and even > promote lies about it. > > > > Here's another *great* one that really shows Goober****wit considers > "getting to experience life", IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be > the major issue for him: > > They [fighting cocks] fight for their own lives as well as for the > *much greater* number of hens and chicks who will never see a "pit", > > but still depend on cockfighting for their lives. > > > I know you're really dense and don't get lots of things, Skanky, so > I'll explain that last one to you. In the thread, Goober****wit > "pointed out" (he sure likes to use that a lot) that not only do the > fighting cocks themselves "only get to live" because they have been > bred to fight, but he went on to "point out" that there are lots of > other chickens, the hens from which the cocks are bred and the chicks, > who also "only get to live" because of the presence of cockfighting. > It was very clear if you followed the whole thread, which I did at the > time, that Goober****wit considered the brutal ending of life for > fighting cocks to be "worth it" because not only did the cocks > themselves "get to experience life", but so also did quite a lot of > hens and female chicks who otherwise would have "missed out". > > That whole thread was a hoot. He kept saying that the cocks are not > "forced" to fight, that they can stop any time they want. Of course, > what he *wasn't* saying is that any cock who stops fighting is > immediately killed and thrown away. He was trying to portray them as > having a "choice" when they really don't have a choice at all. > > And he was trying to justify the whole thing by regurgitating his > already foul and rotting refrain of "at least they 'got to experience > life'." > My stance on fighting cocks is that they live a miserable life. There's no reason they can't be kept without fighting so the excuse for fighting doesn't hold water. I'm going to give DH the benefit of the doubt however, and hope that his position on fighting cocks has changed. If not then we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > > > >"Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > > > wrote: > > > >> >"Derek" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >> [..] > > > >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've > > > >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all > > > >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be > > > >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing > > > >> >> nothing to help put the record straight. > > > >> > > > > >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH > > > >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm > > > >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen > > > >> >all of the past posts. His present > > > >> >position considers the animals, > > > >> >even though it's not mentioned in > > > >> >every sentence. > > > >> > > > >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we > > > >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is > > > >> that we should consider future non-existent animals. > > > >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't > > > >> consider animals, he is dead right. > > > >> > > > >> >He frequently > > > >> >mentions about some benefitting > > > >> >and some not. Jon is trying to > > > >> >convince me that DH doesn't > > > >> >care about the animals welfare. > > > >> > > > >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to > > > >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for > > > >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other > > > >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and > > > >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose > > > >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting > > > >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument > > > >> here, not animal welfare itself. > > > >> > > > >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the > > > >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking > > > >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot > > > >> benefit from any kind of welfare. > > > >> > > > >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct; > > > >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison > > > >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal > > > >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed > > > >> out to him many times. > > > >> > > > >> [start] > > > >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you > > > >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him > > > >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've > > > >> > >> >strapped on to them? > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this! > > > >> > > > > >> > I've answered the same thing in the past. > > > >> > > > >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting > > > >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread. > > > >> > > > >> >The cocks can quit > > > >> > fighting whenever they want. > > > >> > > > >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to > > > >> fight, before they're slashed? > > > >> > > > >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have > > > >> > no such option. > > > >> > > > >> Food doesn't get to run away. > > > >> > > > >> > Why bring it up in this discussion? > > > >> > > > >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite. > > > >> [end] > > > >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw > > > >> > > > >> >So far, from what I've read, I > > > >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's > > > >> >either wrong or lying. > > > > > > > >I disagree with the raising of fighting > > > >cocks. I think they live miserable > > > >lives and suffer at death. If DH does > > > >breed them, then I'm against it, but > > > >like I said, I don't agree 100% with > > > >anyone. > > > > > > Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight, > > > so if we go back to your original statement where > > > you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position > > > on animal welfare; > > > > > > "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't > > > care about the animals welfare. So far, from > > > what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's > > > either wrong or lying." > > > > > > we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying. > > > > If he really does breed them, then I > > am very against that and am willing > > to debate the issue. I consider > > those chickens to be in the category > > of miserable lives. > > I think he may have said he no longer does. He's such a chronic liar, > I suspect he still does. > > In any case, at the time, he justified it by saying that "at least" the > fighting cocks "got to experience life". In other words, ONCE AGAIN, > he considers existence _per se_, IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be > a benefit. > > Here are two things he wrote from back in October of 2000: > > If people didn't fight them, they wouldn't exist. > This may be tough for you, but consider that if you fought chickens, > > there might be 100+ birds in your yard who owed the fact that they > were alive to the fact that you fought chickens. But you don't, so > they don't. But on yards where they do, the stags and cocks go off > to fight for the continued existence of the yard they are a member > of. > > Goober****wit - 13 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" > > > Animals *do* "get to live" as a result of cockfighting. That is why > game chickens exist. > > Goober****wit - 14 Oct 2000, "Cock Fighting" > > > > Here's an exchange from a different thread, a few days later: > > Some guy named Edwin (an idiot, as I recall, but this question was > okay) > >Why shouldn't "game chickens" become extinct? > > > Goober****wit: > Why should they? Just because it bothers YOU that they have > to fight for their lives? It doesn't bother them, and that's what > matters, not what bothers YOU. You don't even know enough > about it to form a worthwhile opinion, and you believe and even > promote lies about it. > > > > Here's another *great* one that really shows Goober****wit considers > "getting to experience life", IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life, to be > the major issue for him: > > They [fighting cocks] fight for their own lives as well as for the > *much greater* number of hens and chicks who will never see a "pit", > > but still depend on cockfighting for their lives. > > > I know you're really dense and don't get lots of things, Skanky, so > I'll explain that last one to you. In the thread, Goober****wit > "pointed out" (he sure likes to use that a lot) that not only do the > fighting cocks themselves "only get to live" because they have been > bred to fight, but he went on to "point out" that there are lots of > other chickens, the hens from which the cocks are bred and the chicks, > who also "only get to live" because of the presence of cockfighting. > It was very clear if you followed the whole thread, which I did at the > time, that Goober****wit considered the brutal ending of life for > fighting cocks to be "worth it" because not only did the cocks > themselves "get to experience life", but so also did quite a lot of > hens and female chicks who otherwise would have "missed out". > > That whole thread was a hoot. He kept saying that the cocks are not > "forced" to fight, that they can stop any time they want. Of course, > what he *wasn't* saying is that any cock who stops fighting is > immediately killed and thrown away. He was trying to portray them as > having a "choice" when they really don't have a choice at all. > > And he was trying to justify the whole thing by regurgitating his > already foul and rotting refrain of "at least they 'got to experience > life'." > My stance on fighting cocks is that they live a miserable life. There's no reason they can't be kept without fighting so the excuse for fighting doesn't hold water. I'm going to give DH the benefit of the doubt however, and hope that his position on fighting cocks has changed. If not then we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
That cockfighting thread is *great* for finding stuff proving that
Goober****wit believes getting to exist is some kind of "benefit" compared with never existing. I'll be going back to mine in that shaft for a while. Here's a good one: The (possibly useful) idiot Edwin: >Please explain how the fighting cock became aware of what his actions >mean for the hens and chicks. Goober****wit: They aren't aware of it...though I'm sure they would be even more willing to fight if they were (if that is possible). The population of game chickens still depends on the small minority of them who are fought though, just like the population of broilers depends on the complete slaughter of flocks of thousands at a time. idiot Edwin: >Cocks fight because of your selective breeding and contrived >situation that plays on their altered instincts, not from any noble >motovations. Goober****wit: The baby birds who have their throats cut don't willingly die for the "noble motivation" of feeding YOU either. But you think that is a "good" cause because you only know how to think of YOU. The birds don't care about YOU. When broilers are slaughtered, a huge flock of thousands is slaughtered with none of them surviving. When game cocks go to fight, a small representation of their flock goes to provide reason for their mothers, sisters, sons and daughters to exist. And about half of the small representation gets to go back home. Those are FACTS! Such facts are only insignificant to people who don't really care about the animals, but only care about supporting their own selfish beliefs and feelings without trying to give unbiased thought to the animals' position. Goober****wit's absurd, illogical and falsely "unbiased thought" about the "animals' position" is that their "getting to experience life" is such a good thing, it justifies whatever treatment and conditions they get. In other words, he doesn't care about quality of life, ONLY that the birds "got to live". Note in particular that he devotes NO attention whatever to the living conditions of these other birds whose existence the fighting cocks unwittingly bring about. No; existence IRRESPECTIVE of quality of life is all that is important to Goober****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:50:08 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:01 -0500, wrote: >>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >>>The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly >>>only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, >> >> That's what the Gonad does to me all the time, and you >>know it. > >Then it should be easy for you to find some examples. >Get busy. Provide examples where Jon has intentionally >misquoted you. > >[..] >>>and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those >>>misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison >>>continues to use you and deceive you in this way. >> >> She has pointed out lies the Gonad tells about me. > >Most of what he claims to know concerning your private >life and position in society, such as job status and education >are probably lies and written to merely annoy you. However, >despite his off-topic insults he's never lied about your position >here on usenet by intentionally misquoting you to misrepresent >your argument. That's a lie. >You, on the other hand leave off important >qualifiers from Jon's quotes to make it seem that he agrees >with whatever point he actually rejects. I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use arguments that he doesn't agree with, but don't expect you to do it. If you can't convince me that the Gonad uses arguments that he doesn't agree with, then I'm left to believe he agrees with the arguments that he uses even though you both lie about it. >>[...] >>>Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >>>yet to see him lie about Harrison's position >> >> That's a lie and we both know it. > >No, Harrison; it's not a lie. Yes it is, and we both do know it. You have proven that you're not better than he is, and that is all you've done. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA >> >> Why? He can't present any decent >> examples of his opposition to "AR". >> Dutch can't either. But if you can, please >> do. > >I think if they were really ARAs, then >they would not be meat eaters, And what in the world could possibly have made you believe they are meat eaters? If they are what I believe them to be, two of the things they would *have* to lie about a 1. that they are "ARAs" 2. that they consume animal products We know for a fact that they lie about some things, so what would make you think they would not lie about what is most important for them to lie about? >since >within the AR movement, that's an >essential, even when the rest is >debated. Sometimes Jon's posts >are worded in such a manner that it >appears to be his beliefs, but other >times he makes it a bit more clear >that it's what he thinks others >believe. Then you need to do what they have so far been unable to do, which is explain why you believe the Gonad uses arguments that he doesn't agree with. So far I only have reason to believe he very much agrees with them, and simply lies about it like he does some many other things. >When he's wrong about >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to >believe them. And when he agrees with them, he uses them to oppose the suggestion that people choose decent AW over "AR", as he constantly does. >> >but it >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch >> >tell people that they MUST believe this >> >or that. It comes across sounding like >> >they believe it themselves and are trying >> >to convince others. >> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into >> believing they use arguments they don't >> agree with. If you believe they would, then >> please explain why. > >I think they want to set up an extremist >view so that they can knock it down >as extremist. They like to jump on >anyone who claims concern for the >animals and tell them they are not >doing it right. They like to say that >if you really believed such 'n such, >you'd do this or that. That's all my >experience with them so far. The Gonad has shown what he wants people to believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he says otherwise. >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> >> to even those scores up a bit. >> > >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >> >isn't. He called me marginally >> >employed and I'm not. Some>> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >> >not lying, then he really believes >> >it. >> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would >> have to be if he's not lying. > >True. > >> >He does dishonest things with >> >people's quotes but that's only >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid >> >spectator. >> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't >> really have anything against him until he lied about >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the >> Gonad. > >I'm stepping out from the fight between >you and Derek. You're both ok in my >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >believe him to lie, then that's just the >way it is. There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it. So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't wonder why Derek lies about this stuff. >I have often seen him >change a person's quotes in order >to change the context and meaning. >That's as good as a lie, the way he >does it. He has many times claimed >I believe things I don't. All you have to do is point them out, and I would love to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict Derek will take his side. >Those are >lies too. Unless, of course, in the >unlikely situation of him actually >believing what he types. Then it's >not technically a lie, I guess. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA >> >> Why? He can't present any decent >> examples of his opposition to "AR". >> Dutch can't either. But if you can, please >> do. > >I think if they were really ARAs, then >they would not be meat eaters, And what in the world could possibly have made you believe they are meat eaters? If they are what I believe them to be, two of the things they would *have* to lie about a 1. that they are "ARAs" 2. that they consume animal products We know for a fact that they lie about some things, so what would make you think they would not lie about what is most important for them to lie about? >since >within the AR movement, that's an >essential, even when the rest is >debated. Sometimes Jon's posts >are worded in such a manner that it >appears to be his beliefs, but other >times he makes it a bit more clear >that it's what he thinks others >believe. Then you need to do what they have so far been unable to do, which is explain why you believe the Gonad uses arguments that he doesn't agree with. So far I only have reason to believe he very much agrees with them, and simply lies about it like he does some many other things. >When he's wrong about >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to >believe them. And when he agrees with them, he uses them to oppose the suggestion that people choose decent AW over "AR", as he constantly does. >> >but it >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch >> >tell people that they MUST believe this >> >or that. It comes across sounding like >> >they believe it themselves and are trying >> >to convince others. >> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into >> believing they use arguments they don't >> agree with. If you believe they would, then >> please explain why. > >I think they want to set up an extremist >view so that they can knock it down >as extremist. They like to jump on >anyone who claims concern for the >animals and tell them they are not >doing it right. They like to say that >if you really believed such 'n such, >you'd do this or that. That's all my >experience with them so far. The Gonad has shown what he wants people to believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he says otherwise. >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive. >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or >> >> misquote from Harrison. >> >> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces, >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan >> >> to even those scores up a bit. >> > >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she >> >isn't. He called me marginally >> >employed and I'm not. Some>> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's >> >not lying, then he really believes >> >it. >> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would >> have to be if he's not lying. > >True. > >> >He does dishonest things with >> >people's quotes but that's only >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid >> >spectator. >> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't >> really have anything against him until he lied about >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the >> Gonad. > >I'm stepping out from the fight between >you and Derek. You're both ok in my >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't >believe him to lie, then that's just the >way it is. There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it. So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't wonder why Derek lies about this stuff. >I have often seen him >change a person's quotes in order >to change the context and meaning. >That's as good as a lie, the way he >does it. He has many times claimed >I believe things I don't. All you have to do is point them out, and I would love to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict Derek will take his side. >Those are >lies too. Unless, of course, in the >unlikely situation of him actually >believing what he types. Then it's >not technically a lie, I guess. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:50:08 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:01 -0500, wrote: >>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>>>The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly >>>>only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents, >>> >>> That's what the Gonad does to me all the time, and you >>>know it. >> >>Then it should be easy for you to find some examples. >>Get busy. Provide examples where Jon has intentionally >>misquoted you. I just knew you'd fail to produce any, Harrison. You can't provide a single example, yet nearly every quote you've produced here from Jon is a misquote, and even when you've been shown to have misquoted him you go on to use the very same misquote again. Pathetic. >>[..] >>>>and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those >>>>misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison >>>>continues to use you and deceive you in this way. >>> >>> She has pointed out lies the Gonad tells about me. >> >>Most of what he claims to know concerning your private >>life and position in society, such as job status and education >>are probably lies and written to merely annoy you. However, >>despite his off-topic insults he's never lied about your position >>here on usenet by intentionally misquoting you to misrepresent >>your argument. > > That's a lie. Yet time after time you fail to provide any examples. >>You, on the other hand leave off important >>qualifiers from Jon's quotes to make it seem that he agrees >>with whatever point he actually rejects. > > I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >arguments that he doesn't agree with He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he appears to contradict himself and promote something he flatly rejects. Just who do you think you're fooling? >>>>Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've >>>>yet to see him lie about Harrison's position >>> >>> That's a lie and we both know it. >> >>No, Harrison; it's not a lie. > > Yes it is, and we both do know it. Then, for the last time, PROVIDE A ****ING EXAMPLE, you lying jerk-off. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More troll lies | General Cooking | |||
| More troll lies | General Cooking | |||
| Sur Lies? | Winemaking | |||
| OT : Oprah lies again | General Cooking | |||
| Dutch lies blatanly | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
