"captain ahab" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
...
> >>I reckon there's litterally millions of black Americans who are
> >>as pleased as punch that their ancestors were chosen as slaves.
> >
> > Watched the news lately?
>
> Are you suggesting the loafing dumb asses

Poor American citizens.

> who refused to leave New Orleans

Couldn't leave. You really don't want to go there, suspect.

> reflect the apex in the Black American experience and thought?

How the coloured population of New Orleans lived, and died.

You certainly seem to represent the wealthy white neocon
'experience and thought', idiot texas ranger, usual cesspit.

> You're an even bigger moron (and a racist, too) than I thought you were

'Projected' is the correct word.

> if you do. The Black American experience isn't monolithic, Lesley.

Yeah, we know- and neither is the White American experience, prat.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:39:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote

>>to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s)
>> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>> animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell
>> out of them.
>
>It doesn't scare them,

You are "them", and yes it does. It also creates horrible cognitive
dissonance for you.

>they think it's unethical.

I feel that you guys are even more disgusting.

>> Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by
>> the suggestion.
>
>That's an obvious lie, I eat meat every day. I had chicken for supper last
>night and bacon for breakfast today.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

I eat a vegetarian diet because I find it more healthy for me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to
>> decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving
>> some consideration to the lives of the animals,
>
>"Some consideration" does not include extracting moral credit from the fact
>that they "experience life".

It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
your imaginary moral browny points.

> and if a person
>> is going to think it through some more he might conclude that:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: "Dutch" >
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>>
>> The method of husbandry determines
>> whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Dutch copied that someplace and posted for some strange
>> reason. I would like to learn where he copied from, of course
>> because that's the way that I obviously feel about it. It's
>> strange that Dutch posted it because he quite obviously does
>> not believe it, and is very opposed to me encouraging people
>> to consider the fact when contemplating human influence on
>> animals.
>
>"Contemplating" does not include extracting moral credit from the fact that
>they "experience life".

It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
your imaginary moral browny points.

> [...]
>>>Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of
>>>raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock
>>>for food.
>>
>> Then why bring up the retarded fantasy at all? Why make up
>> a fantasy, and then present it, and then insist that we not compare
>> it to what we're discussing?
>
>We are discussing the type of thinking that says "life" can be used as a
>justification for killing.

That life justifies death. If you think not, you should oppose all life.

>That's YOUR position. In that context the analogy
>exists. Raising children as sex-slaves is not the same as raising livestock
>for food

Agreed.

dh@. wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2005 05:56:20 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about
> >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You
> >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself =
and the
> >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue =
with
> >> >> >>>>>ourselves.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's th=
e point of
> >> >> >this?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious
> >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing
> >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW?
> >> >> Answer: You would not. Period.
> >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent
> >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=3DElimination.
> >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals,
> >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen.
> >> >
> >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals
> >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives.
> >>
> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people
> >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead
> >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because
> >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s)
> >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
> >> animals raised for food.
> >
> >Both these statements are false.
>
> No they are not. He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact
> that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food,

Which is not the same thing as being opposed to the idea of providing
decent lives for farm aniamls instead of becoming vegan. Dutch supports
the idea that farm animals should have decent lives. He stridently
opposes
veganism. Quit misrepresenting him.

> because of something to do with imaginary moral brownie points. And
> his main objective is to oppose the suggestion that people deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for food animals INSTEAD OF trying not to
> contribute to any...becoming veg*ns....becoming "ARAs".

See above.

> That being
> the case, it's pretty damn obvious he is opposed to people considering
> that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the
> elimination of animals raised for food.

Then why does he eat beef and refuse to apologise for doing so?

> Unless of course you can think
> of some alternative(s) which would be ethically equivalent...to
> eliminating animals raised for food, but would not involve deliberately
> providing them with decent lives.
>
> >Dutch can
>
> Possibly figure some way to lie about it, but I can't figure out how
> he can lie his way out of it this one...or really why he would try.
>
> >correct me if I
> >am wrong.
> >
> >> You probably are too. If people consider
> >> the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming, the elimination
> >> objective, i.e. "AR", would no longer be considered the most
> >> ethical approach, and veganism would be viewed with much
> >> less respect.
> >>
> >> >> Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up
> >> >> things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of
> >> >> losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves.
> >> >> You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself
> >> >> to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Pretty
> >> >> >>>pointless, don't you think?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> ><snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>I just don't "regard" their lives
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, you sure don't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course not,
> >> >>
> >> >> We are in agreement. Damn.
> >> >>
> >> >> >"regarding" with no object is meaningless.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>to be a
> >> >> >>>moral bonus
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant=
, NOT the
> >> >> >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral signific=
ance.
> >> >>
> >> >> To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals'
> >> >> lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you,
> >> >> not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving
> >> >> consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being
> >> >> unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea
> >> >> that people who can make a habit of doing so.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That's the Logic of the Larder,
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig.
> >> >>
> >> >> >and it's false argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are
> >> >> Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs.
> >> >
> >> >I admit I have not read all your exchanges
> >>
> >> Here's a sample:
> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> >> From: "Dutch" >
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700
> >> Message-ID: >
> >>
> >> Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analago=
us to
> >> taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the stree=
ts.
> >> =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=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> >> >but I don't believe you
> >> >ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves.
> >>
> >> Then why don't you provide a good reason why we should think
> >> of raising children as sex slaves and raising animals for food in the
> >> same way?
> >
> >"Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth
> >to her
>
> for the specific reason of using her as a sex slave
>
> > it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact
> >into account."
> >
> >> Dutch insists that we should, but he certainly has never
> >> come close to giving a any reason why we should.
> >
> >Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of
> >raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock
> >for food. All he has done is point out that the logic of the larder
> >can justify selling your children onto the streets. Eg: "Since my
> >daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it
> >would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account."
>
> That would only be true if the ONLY reason she had been born
> was so she could be used as a sex slave.

Naturally but given such a condition....

> Since I don't think of
> raising animals for food and raising children as sex slaves in the
> same way BECAUSE there is such a huge difference between
> the way life would be for the beings involved, your fantasy about
> child sex slaves, and even sex slave pigs, is nothing but more
> "AR" grotesque distortions of the truth. Along the same lines as
> the retarded fantasies about children killing their parents and then
> crying about being orphans....you people just want to change the
> subject to something you feel people will consider worse, and
> insist that it should be thought of in the same way. If you don't
> want it to be thought of in the same way, why in the **** would
> you even try to make the comparison?
>
> Answer: you would not.

The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
the best example to choose but the general point that the logic
of the larder can 'justify' any sort of mistreatment of humans or
animals
provided that (a) they were specifically bred with the mistreatment
in mind and (b) the mistreatment is not so severe that they would have
been better off never to have been born. Do you accept this conclusion?

pearl wrote:
>>>>I reckon there's litterally millions of black Americans who are
>>>>as pleased as punch that their ancestors were chosen as slaves.
>>>
>>>Watched the news lately?
>>
>>Are you suggesting the loafing dumb asses
>
> Poor American citizens.

No, those were loafing dumb asses who ignored orders to evacuate.

>>who refused to leave New Orleans
>
> Couldn't leave.

Yes, they could. Nobody was keeping them from leaving. Anyone could've
hopped a bus or train or caught a ride with neighbors or friends out of
New Orleans. The Superdome was opened as a "destination of last resort"
-- not as a shelter. The only people who physically couldn't leave were
the elderly and infirm, for whom evacuating would have caused more harm
than good.

> You really don't want to go there, suspect.

Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
subsided? How many interviews have you heard from those who stubbornly
refused to leave because they didn't think it would cause the kind of
damage it did ("Golly, we rode out Betsy and it was nothing like
this!")? Don't tell me all those people lacked resources to leave. They
lacked the common sense to get out when told to leave. Some of those
who've resettled (permanently) here in Austin have admitted as much.

>>reflect the apex in the Black American experience and thought?
>
> How the coloured

Black. African-American. "Colored" is perjorative, you twit.

> population of New Orleans lived, and died.

Most of the loafing dumb asses -- black, white, Hispanic, whatever --
from New Orleans were ultimately evacuated. Only 1022 deaths have been
confirmed in Louisiana (not just New Orleans) due to Katrina. That's
hardly the ten-thousand figure thrown out in the ensuing hysteria from
the incompentent Mayor Nagrin.

> You certainly seem to represent the wealthy white neocon

1. My wealth is none of your business.
2. I'm multi-racial.
3. I'm a paleo-conservative, not a neo-conservative. I doubt you know
the difference or even care that there is one.
4. My opinions haven't been formed in a vacuum. I'm no stranger to New
Orleans, and I've had some very positive experiences volunteering in the
transition efforts here.

As I noted above, many evacuees have admitted they thought it would be
like riding out any other thunderstorm. They had cars. They had jobs.
They had resources. They just chose to ride it out. They're damn lucky
to be alive -- some of their family members, friends, and neighbors
weren't as lucky.

>>You're an even bigger moron (and a racist, too) than I thought you were
>
> 'Projected' is the correct word.

No, it isn't. You really are a moron, Les.

>>if you do. The Black American experience isn't monolithic, Lesley.
>
> Yeah, we know-

You apparently don't.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>I reckon there's litterally millions of black Americans who are
> >>>>as pleased as punch that their ancestors were chosen as slaves.
> >>>
> >>>Watched the news lately?
> >>
> >>Are you suggesting the loafing dumb asses
> >
> > Poor American citizens.
>
> No, those were loafing dumb asses who ignored orders to evacuate.

Never Flooded New Orleans Buses Not Used For Evacuation
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/007257.php

> >>who refused to leave New Orleans
> >
> > Couldn't leave.
>
> Yes, they could. Nobody was keeping them from leaving. Anyone could've
> hopped a bus or train or caught a ride with neighbors or friends out of
> New Orleans. The Superdome was opened as a "destination of last resort"
> -- not as a shelter.

Stopped from Leaving New Orleans on Bridge by Men with Shotguns
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/323989.shtml

> The only people who physically couldn't leave were
> the elderly and infirm, for whom evacuating would have caused more harm
> than good.

Sick and Abandoned
By BOB HERBERT
September 15, 2005

It was the stuff of nightmares. Poisonous water moccasins
were swimming in the filthy water of the flooded first floor,
and snipers, rats and even a 12-foot alligator were roaming
the treacherous area just outside the hospital's doors.

"To me, it was like being in hell," said Carl Warner, the
chief engineer for Methodist Hospital in the hard-hit
eastern part of New Orleans. "There were bodies
floating in the water outside the building, and our staffers
had to swim through that water to get fuel for the generator."

The patients and staff at Methodist could have been
evacuated before Hurricane Katrina hit. But instead
they were condemned to several days of fear and agony
by bad decision-making in Louisiana and the chaotic
ineptitude of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Some of the patients died.

Incredibly, when the out-of-state corporate owners of
the hospital responded to the flooding by sending
emergency relief supplies, they were confiscated at the
airport by FEMA and sent elsewhere.

The time to evacuate the hospital was when it became
clear that New Orleans was in the path of a Category 4
or 5 hurricane. "We had about 137 patients," said
Dr. Jeffrey Coco, the hospital's chief of staff, "and we had
a company called Lifeguard that was going to take them out."

But apparently there was a reluctance to evacuate
without some sort of governmental guidance. When the
mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, issued a mandatory
evacuation order, hospitals were exempted. Dr. Fred
Cerise, secretary of Louisiana's Department of Health
and Hospitals, said Methodist officials could have
decided on their own to evacuate, but that never happened.

Some of the patients were extremely ill, requiring ventilators
or dialysis treatment or major surgery. When the hurricane
hit, part of the roof blew off, windows were blown out, the
atrium was badly damaged and the hospital was drenched
with rain. On Monday night the power went out, and on
Tuesday, after the levees broke, the first floor became
hopelessly flooded.

By midweek you had a bizarre situation in which
hundreds of people (patients, doctors, nurses,
administrative staffers, relatives and people seeking
emergency shelter) were stranded, cut off from the
rest of the world, in a badly damaged hospital in a
major American city.

Staffers with flashlights worked heroically in a sodden,
stench-filled environment in which temperatures reached
110 degrees. Elevators did not work, and some patients
weighing more than 400 pounds had to be carried up
dark, reeking staircases. When ventilators shut down
with the loss of power, volunteers worked in shifts to do
the difficult hand-pumping necessary to keep patients alive.

Nevertheless, according to Dr. Albert Barrocas, the
chief medical officer, the decline in the well-being of
the patients was both palpable and widespread.
"All of them were deteriorating in the sense of becoming
weak," he said. "You could see in their faces the fact that
they were scared."

By Tuesday evening four patients had died, and a dozen
were dead by the time the hospital was finally evacuated
Friday. Doctors believe half of the deaths were caused
by the dreadful conditions in the hospital.

Everybody's suffering would have been eased if the
emergency relief effort mounted by the hospital's owner,
Universal Health Services in King of Prussia, Pa., had
not been interfered with by FEMA. Company officials
sent desperately needed water, food, diesel fuel to
power the hospital's generators and helicopters to ferry
in the supplies and evacuate the most vulnerable individuals.

Bruce Gilbert, Universal's general counsel, told me
yesterday, "Those supplies were in fact taken from us
by FEMA, and we were unable to get them to the
hospital. We then determined that it would be better
to send our supplies, food and water to Lafayette
[130 miles from New Orleans] and have our
helicopters fly them from Lafayette to the hospital."

Significant relief began to reach the hospital on Thursday,
and by Friday evening everyone had been removed from
the ruined premises. They had endured the agonies of the
damned, and for all practical purposes had been
abandoned by government at all levels.

When you consider that the Methodist Hospital experience
was just one small part of the New Orleans catastrophe,
you get a sense of the size of the societal failure that we
allowed to happen.

Welcome to the United States in 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/op...gewanted=print

> > You really don't want to go there, suspect.
>
> Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have

You know what? Just go to hell.

pearl wrote:
>>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
>>
>>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
>
> You know what? Just go to hell.

I knew you couldn't bring it on.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
> >>
> >>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
> >
> > You know what? Just go to hell.
>
> I knew you couldn't bring it on.

Meshuga.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
>>>>
>>>>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
>>>
>>>You know what? Just go to hell.
>>
>>I knew you couldn't bring it on.
>
> Meshuga.

Rich coming from someone who believes the earth is hollow and filled
with enlightened beings, and who shaved her head to lure a skinhead into
her lair.

Lotus=Lesley=pearl=lys=lilweed and so on:
http://tinyurl.com/8ypr7
http://snipurl.com/516b

Her ex-husband also posted as lilweed:
What's wrong, mate? Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a
****in love everyone and the animals hippy.

That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea that
shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows
her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry
creatures you want to take a bat to.
http://tinyurl.com/v5i2

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:

Plenty which the idiot troll couldn't address, so snipped.

> >>>>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
> >>>
> >>>You know what? Just go to hell.
> >>
> >>I knew you couldn't bring it on.
> >
> > Meshuga.
>
> Rich coming from

Witness 'usual suspect' being thrashed over the same
incessant ad hominem BS - http://tinyurl.com/7zp93 .

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:39:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>>to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s)
>>> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>>> animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell
>>> out of them.
>>
>>It doesn't scare them,
>
> You are "them", and yes it does.

No I'm not and no it doesn't.

> It also creates horrible cognitive
> dissonance for you.

You don't know what that is.

>>they think it's unethical.
>
> I feel that you guys are even more disgusting.
>
>>> Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by
>>> the suggestion.
>>
>>That's an obvious lie, I eat meat every day. I had chicken for supper last
>>night and bacon for breakfast today.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> I eat a vegetarian diet because I find it more healthy for me.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to
>>> decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving
>>> some consideration to the lives of the animals,
>>
>>"Some consideration" does not include extracting moral credit from the
>>fact
>>that they "experience life".
>
> It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
> your imaginary moral browny points.

It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is offsetting
what you consider an immoral act, killing animals for food. There's no other
reason that you would mount this argument.


>> and if a person
>>> is going to think it through some more he might conclude that:
>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>>>
>>> The method of husbandry determines
>>> whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> Dutch copied that someplace and posted for some strange
>>> reason. I would like to learn where he copied from, of course
>>> because that's the way that I obviously feel about it. It's
>>> strange that Dutch posted it because he quite obviously does
>>> not believe it, and is very opposed to me encouraging people
>>> to consider the fact when contemplating human influence on
>>> animals.
>>
>>"Contemplating" does not include extracting moral credit from the fact
>>that
>>they "experience life".
>
> It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
> your imaginary moral browny points.

It's YOUR argument that is an unethical grab for brownie points, a
justification for killing.

>> [...]
>>>>Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of
>>>>raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock
>>>>for food.
>>>
>>> Then why bring up the retarded fantasy at all? Why make up
>>> a fantasy, and then present it, and then insist that we not compare
>>> it to what we're discussing?
>>
>>We are discussing the type of thinking that says "life" can be used as a
>>justification for killing.
>
> That life justifies death. If you think not, you should oppose all
> life.

That doesn't follow at all.

>>That's YOUR position. In that context the analogy
>>exists. Raising children as sex-slaves is not the same as raising
>>livestock
>>for food
>
> Agreed.

And in neither instance of exploitation can the "experience of life" be used
as a justification for killing.

pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
>>>>>
>>>>>You know what? Just go to hell.

You didn't bring it on.

>>>Meshuga.
>>
>>Rich coming from
>
> Witness

You believe the earth is hollow and filled with enlightened beings, and
shaved your head to lure a skinhead into your lair.

Lotus=Lesley=pearl=lys=lilweed and so on:
http://tinyurl.com/8ypr7
http://snipurl.com/516b

Her ex-husband also posted as lilweed:
What's wrong, mate? Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a
****in love everyone and the animals hippy.

That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea that
shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows
her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry
creatures you want to take a bat to.
http://tinyurl.com/v5i2

This is in your and your ex-husband's own words. It isn't ad hominem. If
you agree your kooky beliefs are kooky, stop making statements about them.

<snip rest of nonresponse>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:

Plenty which 'usual suspect' can't address, so snipped.

> >>>>>>>You really don't want to go there, suspect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Bring it on. How many cars have you counted as the flood waters have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You know what? Just go to hell.
>
> You didn't bring it on.

Run away, little idiot troll.

> >>>Meshuga.
> >>
> >>Rich coming from
> >
> > Witness

'usual suspect' running away from his running away.

-restore-

Witness 'usual suspect' being thrashed over the same
incessant ad hominem BS - http://tinyurl.com/7zp93 .

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:23:59 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:39:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>>to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s)
>>>> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>>>> animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell
>>>> out of them.
>>>
>>>It doesn't scare them,
>>
>> You are "them", and yes it does.
>
>No I'm not

I don't believe that shit.

>and no it doesn't.

I KNOW better than that shit.

>> It also creates horrible cognitive
>> dissonance for you.
>
>You don't know what that is.
>
>>>they think it's unethical.
>>
>> I feel that you guys are even more disgusting.
>>
>>>> Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by
>>>> the suggestion.
>>>
>>>That's an obvious lie, I eat meat every day. I had chicken for supper last
>>>night and bacon for breakfast today.
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: "Dutch" >
>> Message-ID: >
>>
>> I eat a vegetarian diet because I find it more healthy for me.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>> Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to
>>>> decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving
>>>> some consideration to the lives of the animals,
>>>
>>>"Some consideration" does not include extracting moral credit from the
>>>fact
>>>that they "experience life".
>>
>> It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
>> your imaginary moral browny points.
>
>It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is offsetting
>what you consider an immoral act, killing animals for food. There's no other
>reason that you would mount this argument.

There is another reason that you are admittedly unable to comprehend.

On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 9 Oct 2005 05:56:20 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >[...]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about
>> >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You
>> >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the
>> >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with
>> >> >> >>>>>ourselves.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of
>> >> >> >this?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious
>> >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing
>> >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW?
>> >> >> Answer: You would not. Period.
>> >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent
>> >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination.
>> >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals,
>> >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen.
>> >> >
>> >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals
>> >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives.
>> >>
>> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people
>> >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead
>> >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because
>> >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s)
>> >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>> >> animals raised for food.
>> >
>> >Both these statements are false.
>>
>> No they are not. He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact
>> that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food,
>
>Which is not the same thing as being opposed to the idea of providing
>decent lives for farm aniamls instead of becoming vegan.

*IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.

>Dutch supports
>the idea that farm animals should have decent lives.

He and I both believe that much of the funding "AR" groups
receive is from people who want to see animals provided with
decent lives, not eliminated:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The huge difference between us is that I want people to
understand the huge difference between "AR" and decent
AW, and Dutch does NOT:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

> wrote

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
He would rather I kill myself than point it out to people.

>He stridently
>opposes
>veganism.

He pretends very poorly to be an "AR" opponent. That dishonest
attempt at deception is only a part of the character he portrays.

>Quit misrepresenting him.

What you want me to do is to quit exposing him. You people feel that
you are at war. Lying, deception, arson etc are all things such people do:
__________________________________________________ _______
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a war that is fought on on all fronts, as
thousands of actions occur every year
around the world there is bound to be
prisoners. Prisoner support is essential and
important aspect of our movement.
[...]
http://www.animalliberation.net/people/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
« This manuscript explains the philosophy of a group of individuals
throughout the world who call themselves, ‘Liberators’. They believe
in a revolution to liberate animals and, if necessary, to kill their
oppressors. They say such extreme action is needed to stop the horrible
human caused suffering of animals and the destruction of the world.
They believe that nothing short of a total overthrow of this system
will free our brothers and sisters. Please see that this 'Declaration
of War’ is published for the world to read and understand.
Signed - Screaming Wolf »
[...]
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20of%20war.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights Militia
offered to return “one-sixth” of the remains of the 82 year old
mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises guinea
pigs for biomedical research. The woman’s body was stolen from her grave
in October.

August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service lab
in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on maintaining a
healthy forest ecosystem.

September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.

January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.

January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
bomb.

December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> because of something to do with imaginary moral brownie points. And
>> his main objective is to oppose the suggestion that people deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives for food animals INSTEAD OF trying not to
>> contribute to any...becoming veg*ns....becoming "ARAs".
>
>See above.
>
>> That being
>> the case, it's pretty damn obvious he is opposed to people considering
>> that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the
>> elimination of animals raised for food.
>
>Then why does he eat beef and refuse to apologise for doing so?

Dutch has convinced me that he's an "ARA" who is dishonest about
it. I consider him to be extremely dishonest, and what he says he does
and does not eat is absolutely meaningless. I believe that he and
whoever else works with him have created the character "Dutch" (the
same is true of Goo) and the character doesn't necessarily have a
thing to do with the person posting as that character. To me he is of
course just another "ARA" playing a deceptive role in the ngs.

[...]
>> Since I don't think of
>> raising animals for food and raising children as sex slaves in the
>> same way BECAUSE there is such a huge difference between
>> the way life would be for the beings involved, your fantasy about
>> child sex slaves, and even sex slave pigs, is nothing but more
>> "AR" grotesque distortions of the truth. Along the same lines as
>> the retarded fantasies about children killing their parents and then
>> crying about being orphans....you people just want to change the
>> subject to something you feel people will consider worse, and
>> insist that it should be thought of in the same way. If you don't
>> want it to be thought of in the same way, why in the **** would
>> you even try to make the comparison?
>>
>> Answer: you would not.
>
>The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
>was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
>animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
>to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
>the best example to choose

I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
basis for saying that a human being has special rights."

so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".

>but the general point that the logic
>of the larder can 'justify' any sort of mistreatment of humans or
>animals
>provided that (a) they were specifically bred with the mistreatment
>in mind and (b) the mistreatment is not so severe that they would have
>been better off never to have been born. Do you accept this conclusion?

I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,
and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
contribute to decent lives for them, it would be disastrous for
"AR". And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
out. *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:23:59 GMT, "Other guy" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:39:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>>>to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s)
>>>>> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>>>>> animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell
>>>>> out of them.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't scare them,
>>>
>>> You are "them", and yes it does.
>>
>>No I'm not
>
> I don't believe that shit.

Yes you do.

>>and no it doesn't.
>
> I KNOW better than that shit.

You have more faith in the depth of vegan concern than I do.

>>> It also creates horrible cognitive
>>> dissonance for you.
>>
>>You don't know what that is.

Describe cognitive dissonance, what is it? What does it feel like?

>>>>they think it's unethical.
>>>
>>> I feel that you guys are even more disgusting.
>>>
>>>>> Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by
>>>>> the suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>That's an obvious lie, I eat meat every day. I had chicken for supper
>>>>last
>>>>night and bacon for breakfast today.
>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>> Message-ID: >
>>>
>>> I eat a vegetarian diet because I find it more healthy for me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Here's the whole message..

---start---
Dutch Jan 8 2001, 7:56 pm show options

Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan,
talk.politics.animals
From: "Dutch" > - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:52:56 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 8 2001 7:52 pm
Subject: Types of Vegetarians

"Edward Hawkins" > wrote in message
...

> In article >, RoyL wrote:
> > You'll miss it when it is gone!

> I won't miss it when it's gone because it won't be gone. I eat a
> healthy vegetarian diet. I don't eat that diet because it is
> beneficial to me, but because it does not involve the killing of
> animals. As others have pointed out, the fact that a vegetarian diet
> is more healthy is an added bonus for ethical vegetarians.

I replied:

I eat a vegetarian diet because I find it more healthy for me. I have no
illusions that the process that brings the food to my table did not mean
animals had to suffer and die. I'm more comfortable with accepting my role
in the dance of life and death than I am with hypocrisy.

---end---

I was still a vegetarian in January 2001. Why are you using that to attempt
to show that I am one now? I'm not a vegetarian now, why do you need me to
be one?


>>>>> Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to
>>>>> decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving
>>>>> some consideration to the lives of the animals,
>>>>
>>>>"Some consideration" does not include extracting moral credit from the
>>>>fact
>>>>that they "experience life".
>>>
>>> It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
>>> your imaginary moral browny points.
>>
>>It has been repeatedly established that all you can care about is
>>offsetting
>>what you consider an immoral act, killing animals for food. There's no
>>other
>>reason that you would mount this argument.
>
> There is another reason that you are admittedly unable to comprehend.

The reason you think we should "consider what the animals get out of it" is
that you think that it strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical
position on animals as compared to veganism. The logical implication of this
argument is that the non-vegans position is inherently weaker to begin with.
In fact, using that reasoning makes the non-vegan moral and ethical position
weaker, not stronger.

<dh@.> wrote

> *IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
> contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
> veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
> caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
> But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.

What I am opposing is your notion that people should consume animal products
and feel good that it means "more animals get to experience life". That's
rubbish.

<snip same old shit>

I go for the pragmatic myself. The Vedas say that some of what you meet
are forms which are formed and animated by the divine. But these Avatars
are *not* sentient beings, even tho they may appear in human form. Terri
Schaivo being a case in point. I remember a man in a hospital bed at the
St. Peter MN asylum, who had never made a volitional act. Truly sinless.

Resperation and digestion, but no prefrontal lobe activity at all. He is
clearly an Avatar, and no doubt there are millions more with remoted in
their hands on the couches who have never had an original thot. The
thing about an Avatar, is that you can learn from one, but you cant
teach an Avatar anything. As you see with many of your correspondents.

If a Zebra has animal rights, so do its ticks. So do the mosquitos in
your back yard. We worry about the way animals are treated, not for the
sake of the animal, but to prove to ourselves we are not savages. Many
in human form dont bother with that, abuse animals, and prove that they
are indeed savages. The best solution is not litigation, but to inform
their case workers its time to up the meds.

Day Brown wrote:

> I go for the pragmatic myself. The Vedas say that some of what you meet
> are forms which are formed and animated by the divine. But these Avatars
> are *not* sentient beings, even tho they may appear in human form. Terri
> Schaivo being a case in point. I remember a man in a hospital bed at the
> St. Peter MN asylum, who had never made a volitional act. Truly sinless.
>
> Resperation and digestion, but no prefrontal lobe activity at all. He is
> clearly an Avatar, and no doubt there are millions more with remoted in
> their hands on the couches who have never had an original thot. The
> thing about an Avatar, is that you can learn from one, but you cant
> teach an Avatar anything. As you see with many of your correspondents.
>
> If a Zebra has animal rights, so do its ticks. So do the mosquitos in
> your back yard.

Why is it necessary to grant rights tom ticks and mosquitos in order
to grant them to zebras?

> We worry about the way animals are treated, not for the
> sake of the animal, but to prove to ourselves we are not savages.

No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we are
capable of compassion for them.

> Many
> in human form dont bother with that, abuse animals, and prove that they
> are indeed savages. The best solution is not litigation, but to inform
> their case workers its time to up the meds.

dh@. wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Oct 2005 05:56:20 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >[...]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about
> >> >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You
> >> >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the
> >> >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with
> >> >> >> >>>>>ourselves.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn'tit?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what'sthe point of
> >> >> >> >this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious
> >> >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing
> >> >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW?
> >> >> >> Answer: You would not. Period.
> >> >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent
> >> >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination.
> >> >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals,
> >> >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals
> >> >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people
> >> >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead
> >> >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because
> >> >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s)
> >> >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
> >> >> animals raised for food.
> >> >
> >> >Both these statements are false.
> >>
> >> No they are not. He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact
> >> that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food,
> >
> >Which is not the same thing as being opposed to the idea of providing
> >decent lives for farm aniamls instead of becoming vegan.
>
> *IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
> contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
> veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
> caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
> But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.

No. He is in favour of livestock being raised under humane conditions
rather than not being raised at all. However he is opposed to your
reasons for supporting the former over the latter.

> >Dutch supports
> >the idea that farm animals should have decent lives.
>
> He and I both believe that much of the funding "AR" groups
> receive is from people who want to see animals provided with
> decent lives, not eliminated:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> The huge difference between us is that I want people to
> understand the huge difference between "AR" and decent
> AW, and Dutch does NOT:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> > wrote
>
> > AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> > farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> > the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
>
> Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
> your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> He would rather I kill myself than point it out to people.

Telling someone to kill oneself is usually a figure of speech,
not to be taken literally.

> >He stridently
> >opposes
> >veganism.
>
> He pretends very poorly to be an "AR" opponent. That dishonest
> attempt at deception is only a part of the character he portrays.

If his objective posting here is to convert people to the AR side
then he should try learning some things from you. The CD argument
is a tougher challenge for veganism than the LoL.
>
> >Quit misrepresenting him.
>
> What you want me to do is to quit exposing him. You people feel that
> you are at war. Lying, deception, arson etc are all things such people do:

WTF?

> __________________________________________________ _____
> DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
>
> "We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
> (USA Today, September 3, 1991)
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> In a war that is fought on on all fronts, as
> thousands of actions occur every year
> around the world there is bound to be
> prisoners. Prisoner support is essential and
> important aspect of our movement.
> [...]
> http://www.animalliberation.net/people/
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> « This manuscript explains the philosophy of a group of individuals
> throughout the world who call themselves, 'Liberators'. They believe
> in a revolution to liberate animals and, if necessary, to kill their
> oppressors. They say such extreme action is needed to stop the horrible
> human caused suffering of animals and the destruction of the world.
> They believe that nothing short of a total overthrow of this system
> will free our brothers and sisters. Please see that this 'Declaration
> of War' is published for the world to read and understand.
> Signed - Screaming Wolf »
> [...]
> http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20of%20war.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
> In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights Militia
> offered to return "one-sixth" of the remains of the 82 year old
> mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises guinea
> pigs for biomedical research. The woman's body was stolen from her grave
> in October.
>
> August 11, 2002:
> Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service lab
> in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on maintaining a
> healthy forest ecosystem.
>
> September 21, 2001 UK:
> Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
> who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
> a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
> mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
> not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
> the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
> child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial,evidence
> indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.
>
> January 5, 2001 UK:
> Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
> bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
> explosion.
>
> January 5, 2001 UK:
> A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
> bomb.
>
> December 30, 2000 UK:
> A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
> the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
> The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
> Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.
>
> http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
This is all a massive diversion. None of this has anything to do
with the preposterous claim that Dutch is an ARA.

> >> because of something to do with imaginary moral brownie points. And
> >> his main objective is to oppose the suggestion that people deliberately
> >> contribute to decent lives for food animals INSTEAD OF trying not to
> >> contribute to any...becoming veg*ns....becoming "ARAs".
> >
> >See above.
> >
> >> That being
> >> the case, it's pretty damn obvious he is opposed to people considering
> >> that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the
> >> elimination of animals raised for food.
> >
> >Then why does he eat beef and refuse to apologise for doing so?
>
> Dutch has convinced me that he's an "ARA" who is dishonest about
> it. I consider him to be extremely dishonest, and what he says he does
> and does not eat is absolutely meaningless. I believe that he and
> whoever else works with him have created the character "Dutch" (the
> same is true of Goo) and the character doesn't necessarily have a
> thing to do with the person posting as that character. To me he is of
> course just another "ARA" playing a deceptive role in the ngs.

You don't have any meaningful evidence to back up this fanciful notion.

> [...]
> >> Since I don't think of
> >> raising animals for food and raising children as sex slaves in the
> >> same way BECAUSE there is such a huge difference between
> >> the way life would be for the beings involved, your fantasy about
> >> child sex slaves, and even sex slave pigs, is nothing but more
> >> "AR" grotesque distortions of the truth. Along the same lines as
> >> the retarded fantasies about children killing their parents and then
> >> crying about being orphans....you people just want to change the
> >> subject to something you feel people will consider worse, and
> >> insist that it should be thought of in the same way. If you don't
> >> want it to be thought of in the same way, why in the **** would
> >> you even try to make the comparison?
> >>
> >> Answer: you would not.
> >
> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
> >the best example to choose
>
> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
>
> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
>
> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".

Believe what you will. Your delusions are not my problem.

> >but the general point that the logic
> >of the larder can 'justify' any sort of mistreatment of humans or
> >animals
> >provided that (a) they were specifically bred with the mistreatment
> >in mind and (b) the mistreatment is not so severe that they would have
> >been better off never to have been born. Do you accept this conclusion?
>
> I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
> has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,

It does.

> and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for them,

Animals don't need to be farmed in order to experience decent lives.

> it would be disastrous for "AR".

No it wouldn't.

> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
> out.

We oppose your reasoning because it sucks - not because it
allegedly undermines the AR cause.

> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!

I am not opposed to considering that. Now you are misrepresenting me.

Dave wrote:

> No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we are
> capable of compassion for them.

There is no *we* sunshine, on usenet you speak only for you.

Well good on you Dave, if you owned an animal I would uphold your right
to treat it in any way you liked.

However, if I didn't like what you were doing to the animal and because
you are a human being, meaning you are probably of some use to me, and
because I value your life above that of any other living entity, then I
might try and *peacefully* persuade you to stop whatever it was you are
doing that caused me my self-inflicted anger.

I might even consider making you an offer in exchange of you leaving
the animal alone, eg mowing your lawns, a few dollars perhaps, rational
argument eg dogs have been known to save human lives, on the other hand
and probably most likely I would yell at you to stop being such a
****en cowardice moron.

You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers fraudsters of
human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm, deserve to be in
jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but contempt,
ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY humans do.

Yea yea I know there are scum on here who claim animals have rights,
but they only do so because they've heard some other scum say it.

Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
them *right*.


Michael Gordge

wrote:
> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
> them *right*.
Agreed, and who gets to decide *which* animals have rights? If Zebras
do, why dont ticks? Why not mosquitoes or bol weevils? Size is not a
reliable factor; as noted, some in human form are not even as conscious
as an insect.

Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
are capable of making rational choices about their best interest. Kids
dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational choices.

I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient. If I see a
man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
his case worker to increase his meds. Criminal charges gratify the
instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.

"Day Brown" > wrote
> wrote:

>> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
>> them *right*.

> Agreed, and who gets to decide *which* animals have rights?

Humans, the same ones who decided that humans have rights.

> If Zebras
> do, why dont ticks? Why not mosquitoes or bol weevils? Size is not a
> reliable factor; as noted, some in human form are not even as conscious
> as an insect.

"Human rights" is such a fundamental all-pervasive ideal (self-evident) that
we forget that the word "right" still exists outside that context. It is
correct and understandable in language to say for example that pets have a
right to be protected from neglect and abuse. That right is held against
their owner and caregiver.

> Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
> are capable of making rational choices about their best interest. Kids
> dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational choices.

Kids *do* have all the fundamental rights, even though they don't understand
them.

> I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient.

That's nonsense.

> If I see a
> man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
> his case worker to increase his meds.

That's flippant and non-responsive.

> Criminal charges gratify the
> instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.

Certainly they do, as much as criminal charges work to deter any crime.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:55:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>> There is another reason that you are admittedly unable to comprehend.
>
>The reason you think we should "consider what the animals get out of it" is
>that you think that it strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical
>position on animals as compared to veganism. The logical implication of this
>argument is that the non-vegans position is inherently weaker to begin with.

That's a lie.

>In fact, using that reasoning makes the non-vegan moral and ethical position
>weaker, not stronger.

That's a lie. It only means that to you "ARAs". It doesn't mean that to
anyone who doesn't agree elimination is the most ethical possible approach
....to anyone who understands that decent lives are of positive value to the
animals. Where did you copy that idea from Dutch? Why are you afraid
to tell me? Is it because you don't really understand any of the shit you
post? Are you like a parrot or something, just reciting things that you don't
understand? That would explain a lot about you. Where did you copy the
fact about life possibly having a positive value from? Just tell me that. I'm
not going to try to get you to tell me where you get all the other garbage,
but you could at least tell me where you copied the one thing you've pasted
that I have some interest in...the one thing you've pasted that has to do with
animals...the one thing you've pasted that has to do with reality. Where did
you run across it?

On 14 Oct 2005 18:01:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:

>> I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
>> has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,
>
>It does.

I find it hard to believe you understand that, much much less
that you could possibly consider it to be significant.

>> and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives for them,
>
>Animals don't need to be farmed in order to experience decent lives.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begin their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

>> it would be disastrous for "AR".
>
>No it wouldn't.

There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
think you believe it either.

>> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
>> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
>> out.
>
>We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -

As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

>not because it
>allegedly undermines the AR cause.

Of course I still believe that's a lie.

>> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
>> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
>> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
>> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
>> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
>
>I am not opposed to considering that.

If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
encouraging people to consider it sux?

>Now you are misrepresenting me.

I just can't help but believe you're lying about that too. As yet
there is no way I can believe you're not just another lying "ARA".
There is no reason I can think of why anyone who cares about
human influence on animals should be opposed to taking their
lives into consideration, and no one has explained a reason why
either, but like I said above: if you think you can EXPLAIN it,
please try.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:59:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>
>> *IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
>> contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
>> veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
>> caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
>> But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.
>
>What I am opposing is your notion that people should consume animal products
>and feel good that it means "more animals get to experience life".

No doubt, regardless of the quality of their lives, and regardless of whether or
not their lives have a positive value for the animals. Even when it means they get
to experience decent lives. Even when it means they get to experience good lives.
Even if it meant billions of them could experience wonderful lives, you would be
opposed to it.

>That's
>rubbish.

It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you don't want people to
consider because it works against the elimination objective. That's the only
reason. LOL...you think you have all the imaginary moral brownie points with the
elimination objective, and you damn sure don't want to lose any to people who
deliberately provide animals with decent lives. You really are about as selfish as
a person can get.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:55:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>>The reason you think we should "consider what the animals get out of it"
>>is
>>that you think that it strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical
>>position on animals as compared to veganism. The logical implication of
>>this
>>argument is that the non-vegans position is inherently weaker to begin
>>with.
>
> That's a lie.

Which part? You *do* think "considering what the animals get out of it"
strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical position. As far as the second
part, it is clearly implicit that we you think we need this argument, which
implies weakness in our position.

>>In fact, using that reasoning makes the non-vegan moral and ethical
>>position
>>weaker, not stronger.
>
> That's a lie. It only means that to you "ARAs".

Note how many non-vegans are rushing to get on your bandwagon. Note how you
end up in desperation branding everyone who disagrees with your logic an
ARA.

> It doesn't mean that to
> anyone who doesn't agree elimination is the most ethical possible approach

To them most of all. ARA *love* hearing self-serving crap like yours coming
from the anti-AR camp.

> ...to anyone who understands that decent lives are of positive value to
> the
> animals.

That doesn't mean compared to not being born, it means assuming that they
are born, compared to being mistreated. You can't attack veganism based on
the fact that their lifestyles *don't* support livestock "getting to
experience life". That's not a rational argument. When comparing veganism
and non-veganism you can't logically use as an argument the fact that
non-vegans cause food animals (livestock) to be born and experience life.
The argument doesn't fly, it's circular. It seems pointless to continue to
tell you this though, I fear you'll believe it until the day you day you
die, even if your detractors outnumber your supporters 1000/1 you'll never
get off this.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 14 Oct 2005 18:01:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dh@. wrote:
>
>>> I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
>>> has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,
>>
>>It does.
>
> I find it hard to believe you understand that, much much less
> that you could possibly consider it to be significant.

You find it hard to understand a lot of things.

>>> and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
>>> contribute to decent lives for them,
>>
>>Animals don't need to be farmed in order to experience decent lives.
>
> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> that begin their particular existence. Those animals will
> only live if people continue to raise them for food.

So what?

> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
> for their existence. ·

Totally irrelevant.

>>> it would be disastrous for "AR".
>>
>>No it wouldn't.
>
> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
> think you believe it either.
>
>>> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
>>> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
>>> out.
>>
>>We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
>
> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

Why. so you can ignore him like you ignore everyone else?

>>not because it
>>allegedly undermines the AR cause.
>
> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
>
>>> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
>>> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
>>> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
>>> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
>>> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
>>
>>I am not opposed to considering that.
>
> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
> encouraging people to consider it sux?

He's opposed to considering that raising livestock per se has inherent moral
significance. It doesn't. That doesn't mean that decent conditions aren't
good for animals.

>
>>Now you are misrepresenting me.
>
> I just can't help but believe you're lying about that too. As yet
> there is no way I can believe you're not just another lying "ARA".

This sounds familiar, as soon as someone disagrees with you they are a liar
and an ARA.

> There is no reason I can think of why anyone who cares about
> human influence on animals should be opposed to taking their
> lives into consideration, and no one has explained a reason why
> either, but like I said above: if you think you can EXPLAIN it,
> please try.

Why should he bother? It's been tried hundreds of times. You aren't
genuinely open to any idea that contradicts your pet philosophy.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:59:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> *IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
>>> contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
>>> veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
>>> caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
>>> But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.
>>
>>What I am opposing is your notion that people should consume animal
>>products
>>and feel good that it means "more animals get to experience life".
>
> No doubt, regardless of the quality of their lives, and regardless of
> whether or
> not their lives have a positive value for the animals.

Correct. Feel good that they had a decent life, not that they had life per
se.

> Even when it means they get
> to experience decent lives.

Correct.

> Even when it means they get to experience good lives.

Correct.

> Even if it meant billions of them could experience wonderful lives, you
> would be
> opposed to it.

"could"??

I am opposed to your notion that people should consume animal products and
feel good that it means "more animals get to experience life". That has
NOTHING to do with feeling good that animals have decent lives *if* they are
raised. As always you are equivocating between feeling good about animals
having decent lives and feeling good that animals are alive 'per se'. Your
whole argument is couched in this equivocation.

>>That's
>>rubbish.
>
> It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you don't want
> people to
> consider because it works against the elimination objective.

It has almost NO effect on the "elimination objective", what miniscule
effect it does have is to discredit the anti-AR position, which *helps* the
"elimination objective".

[..]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:33:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:55:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>
>>>The reason you think we should "consider what the animals get out of it"
>>>is
>>>that you think that it strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical
>>>position on animals as compared to veganism. The logical implication of
>>>this
>>>argument is that the non-vegans position is inherently weaker to begin
>>>with.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>Which part? You *do* think "considering what the animals get out of it"
>strengthens the non-vegan's moral and ethical position. As far as the second
>part, it is clearly implicit that we you think we need this argument, which
>implies weakness in our position.
>
>>>In fact, using that reasoning makes the non-vegan moral and ethical
>>>position
>>>weaker, not stronger.
>>
>> That's a lie. It only means that to you "ARAs".
>
>Note how many non-vegans are rushing to get on your bandwagon. Note how you
>end up in desperation branding everyone who disagrees with your logic an
>ARA.
>
>> It doesn't mean that to
>> anyone who doesn't agree elimination is the most ethical possible approach
>
>To them most of all. ARA *love* hearing self-serving crap like yours coming
>from the anti-AR camp.
>
>> ...to anyone who understands that decent lives are of positive value to
>> the
>> animals.
>
>That doesn't mean compared to not being born, it means assuming that they
>are born, compared to being mistreated. You can't attack veganism based on
>the fact that their lifestyles *don't* support livestock "getting to
>experience life". That's not a rational argument. When comparing veganism
>and non-veganism you can't logically use as an argument the fact that
>non-vegans cause food animals (livestock) to be born and experience life.
>The argument doesn't fly, it's circular. It seems pointless to continue to
>tell you this though, I fear you'll believe it until the day you day you
>die, even if your detractors outnumber your supporters 1000/1 you'll never
>get off this.

I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that some
of them don't. I'm never going to unlearn that fact. There's no way that I
could. When I first began posting I was afraid that someone might point
out something I hadn't considered and show how I'm wrong, but it's been
at least 5 years and no one has come close to doing so. By this time it's
obvious to me that no one can show how I'm wrong, because I'm not
wrong. It's because you can't show that I'm wrong--but you very badly
want me to be--that you feel forced to invent fantasies and try to support
your hero Salt's fantasy about the pig who knows he'll be slaughtered
and butchered, and lie about what I'm saying. The truth is on my side,
not yours.

There have been only two people who I've had much respect for that
somewhat opposed what I point out. The first was Ward Clark. He just
said that he didn't agree, and never went into any detail as to why. I still
wish that he had, of course because I can still think of no reason why
anyone in favor of decent AW would be opposed to considering the
animals' lives. The second was Swamp. He did go into detail as to why,
but all of his objections were "AR" ideas that I don't agree with:

From:
Message-ID: >

Good lord man, look at all these times you presented "AR" arguments,
and how many times you yourself said that's what they a
__________________________________________________ _______
from Swamp:

No, the ARs would say that's it's immoral for us to bring animals into
the world knowing their lives are going to be severely truncated. To
them, no life is better than short, cushy life even if the livestock
are unaware of their fate.

Again, the question is whether it would be more ethical not to create
these lives at all. AR would have us believe so. I don't share that
view

AR would argue
that creating such a life, no matter how many times it is benefitted,
is inherently wrong.

It's certainly part of the equation if one argues for their
elimination.

You have a fundamental impasse, not w/ the arguments but w/ yourself.
You need to imagine a world where there is no ranching to understand
where the ar/evs are coming from.

....ending in slaughter, which trumps dubious benefits from a rare but
salient ar viewpoint.

How can a premature death be a benefit? Again, as much as I disagree
w/ ARs, they've a point here.

If animals weren't raised this wouldn't be an issue. Once again,the AR
argument is stronger than yours

Unfortunately, my reasons echo ar's. I see no harm to livestock in
letting them disappear, or benefit to them in getting to live. I don't
think they suffer horribly as ar would have us believe, but the
benefit is all ours.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[...]

There was another poster, James Hepler, who I had some respect for,
but I agree with him so you will hate what he had to say:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: James Hepler >
Message-ID: >#1/1

While this sort of rationalizes the general AR proposal to end
domestication and subsequently allow a given species to die out, doesn't
it also rationalize the forced extinction of a given wild species as
well? As in, "The spotted owls don't care if they go extinct, why
should I"?

Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?

Or is that a strawman?

James Hepler

--
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease" -3.2.3
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: James Hepler >
Message-ID: >#1/1

Funny. Support a philosophy that advocates the extinction of multiple
species and call it Animal Rights. That never ceases to surprise me.
That's kinda how all extinction works, right? "They'd be better off not
existing"?!? Coming from an ARA it sounds more absurd than coming from
people who hunt California Condors.

James Hepler
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:42:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>> There is no reason I can think of why anyone who cares about
>> human influence on animals should be opposed to taking their
>> lives into consideration, and no one has explained a reason why
>> either, but like I said above: if you think you can EXPLAIN it,
>> please try.
>
>Why should he bother?

I can think of 2 possible reasons:

1. To back up his claim.
2. To share what he *supposedly* considers to be a significant
aspect of human influence on animals.

>It's been tried hundreds of times. You aren't
>genuinely open to any idea that contradicts your pet philosophy.

No, not to "any" idea. For example I'm not interested in the fantasy
ideas that are all you can present. But if someone can present a realistic
objection that doesn't have anything to do with imaginary moral browny
points etc, or lies about what I'm saying, I would love to consider it. If
somehow I'm wrong, and none of the billions of animals humans raise
for food ever have or ever can benefit from farming, I would certainly
love to learn how that could possibly be the case. So far it still seems
impossible to me.

<dh@.> wrote

[..]

> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
> some
> of them don't.

Please answer a few questions about the line between animals that benefit
and those that don't.

What does that mean, they benefit? What formula do you use to determine
"benefit"?

Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.

Where is your line? How do you manage to stay on the right side of it?

What happens to me if I go on the wrong side of that line? Am I a bad
person?

What if my line is a completely different place than yours? Is that OK?

Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all". Which
is better? Why?

wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>
> > No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we are
> > capable of compassion for them.
>
> There is no *we* sunshine, on usenet you speak only for you.
>
> Well good on you Dave, if you owned an animal I would uphold your right
> to treat it in any way you liked.
>
> However, if I didn't like what you were doing to the animal and because
> you are a human being, meaning you are probably of some use to me, and
> because I value your life above that of any other living entity, then I
> might try and *peacefully* persuade you to stop whatever it was you are
> doing that caused me my self-inflicted anger.
>
> I might even consider making you an offer in exchange of you leaving
> the animal alone, eg mowing your lawns, a few dollars perhaps, rational
> argument eg dogs have been known to save human lives, on the other hand
> and probably most likely I would yell at you to stop being such a
> ****en cowardice moron.
>
> You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers fraudsters of
> human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm, deserve to be in
> jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but contempt,
> ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY humans do.

Why do you consider that animals deserve no protection from harm?

> Yea yea I know there are scum on here who claim animals have rights,
> but they only do so because they've heard some other scum say it.
>
> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
> them *right*.

See above.

Day Brown wrote:

> wrote:
> > Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
> > them *right*.
> Agreed, and who gets to decide *which* animals have rights?

Who gets to decide what rights humans have?

> If Zebras
> do, why dont ticks? Why not mosquitoes or bol weevils?

What happens to a zebra matters to that Zebra. It's not entirely
clear the same can be said for ticks.

> Size is not a
> reliable factor; as noted, some in human form are not even as conscious
> as an insect.

Brain structure, behaviour...
>
> Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
> are capable of making rational choices about their best interest.

The point of rights in this context is not to enable people to act in
what they perceive to be their best interests. It is to protect other
conscious entities from harm.

> Kids dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational
> choices.

So does that mean that if someone harms a child then the best solution
is not litigation, but to inform their case workers its time to up
the meds?
>
> I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient. If I see a
> man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
> his case worker to increase his meds. Criminal charges gratify the
> instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.

Rehabilitation is far more important than punishment but by locking
away those who would abuse others you are protecting potential future
vicitms. Animals who can suffer deserve such protection.

dh@. wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2005 18:01:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
>
> >> I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
> >> has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,
> >
> >It does.
>
> I find it hard to believe you understand that, much much less
> that you could possibly consider it to be significant.
>
> >> and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
> >> contribute to decent lives for them,
> >
> >Animals don't need to be farmed in order to experience decent lives.
>
> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> on them to not only sustain their lives,

These habitats fall into two categories:
(a) Those whose natural form can sustain the lives of whatever
species of animals are farmed there for which your argument is
redundant.
(b) Those whose natural form has been altered by humans in order that
they may farm the land. In most cases (as far as I know all cases) the
natural form can support more animal lives than the altered form.

> but they also
> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> that begin their particular existence.

And without humans to pair the sperm and egg a different pairing
of sperm and egg would take place and a different animal would
result.

> Those animals will
> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>
> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
> for their existence. ·

But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals? Are the latter
of no value?

> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
> >
> >No it wouldn't.
>
> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
> think you believe it either.

Whatever.

> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
> >> out.
> >
> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
>
> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
by and owed to humans even though all we have really done is
influenced evolution.

> >not because it
> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
>
> Of course I still believe that's a lie.

That is your problem.

> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
> >
> >I am not opposed to considering that.
>
> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
> encouraging people to consider it sux?

What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>
> >Now you are misrepresenting me.
>
> I just can't help but believe you're lying about that too. As yet
> there is no way I can believe you're not just another lying "ARA".
> There is no reason I can think of why anyone who cares about
> human influence on animals should be opposed to taking their
> lives into consideration, and no one has explained a reason why
> either, but like I said above: if you think you can EXPLAIN it,
> please try.

dh@. wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Oct 2005 05:56:20 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >[...]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about
> >> >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You
> >> >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the
> >> >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with
> >> >> >> >>>>>ourselves.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn'tit?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what'sthe point of
> >> >> >> >this?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious
> >> >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing
> >> >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW?
> >> >> >> Answer: You would not. Period.
> >> >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent
> >> >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination.
> >> >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals,
> >> >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals
> >> >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people
> >> >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead
> >> >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because
> >> >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s)
> >> >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
> >> >> animals raised for food.
> >> >
> >> >Both these statements are false.
> >>
> >> No they are not. He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact
> >> that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food,
> >
> >Which is not the same thing as being opposed to the idea of providing
> >decent lives for farm aniamls instead of becoming vegan.
>
> *IF!* Dutch was not opposed to people considering deliberately
> contributing to decent lives for farm animals instead of becoming
> veg*n as I suggest, then he would encourage them to do so but
> caution them never to feel good about themselves for doing it.
> But that's not what he does. Instead he opposes the suggestion.
>
> >Dutch supports
> >the idea that farm animals should have decent lives.
>
> He and I both believe that much of the funding "AR" groups
> receive is from people who want to see animals provided with
> decent lives, not eliminated:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> The huge difference between us is that I want people to
> understand the huge difference between "AR" and decent
> AW, and Dutch does NOT:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> > wrote
>
> > AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> > farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> > the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
>
> Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
> your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> He would rather I kill myself than point it out to people.
>
> >He stridently
> >opposes
> >veganism.
>
> He pretends very poorly to be an "AR" opponent. That dishonest
> attempt at deception is only a part of the character he portrays.
>
> >Quit misrepresenting him.
>
> What you want me to do is to quit exposing him. You people feel that
> you are at war. Lying, deception, arson etc are all things such people do:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
>
> "We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
> (USA Today, September 3, 1991)
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> In a war that is fought on on all fronts, as
> thousands of actions occur every year
> around the world there is bound to be
> prisoners. Prisoner support is essential and
> important aspect of our movement.
> [...]
> http://www.animalliberation.net/people/
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> « This manuscript explains the philosophy of a group of individuals
> throughout the world who call themselves, 'Liberators'. They believe
> in a revolution to liberate animals and, if necessary, to kill their
> oppressors. They say such extreme action is needed to stop the horrible
> human caused suffering of animals and the destruction of the world.
> They believe that nothing short of a total overthrow of this system
> will free our brothers and sisters. Please see that this 'Declaration
> of War' is published for the world to read and understand.
> Signed - Screaming Wolf »
> [...]
> http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20of%20war.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
> In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights Militia
> offered to return "one-sixth" of the remains of the 82 year old
> mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises guinea
> pigs for biomedical research. The woman's body was stolen from her grave
> in October.
>
> August 11, 2002:
> Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service lab
> in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on maintaining a
> healthy forest ecosystem.
>
> September 21, 2001 UK:
> Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
> who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
> a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
> mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
> not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
> the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
> child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial,evidence
> indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.
>
> January 5, 2001 UK:
> Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
> bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
> explosion.
>
> January 5, 2001 UK:
> A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
> bomb.
>
> December 30, 2000 UK:
> A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
> the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
> The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
> Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.
>
> http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> because of something to do with imaginary moral brownie points. And
> >> his main objective is to oppose the suggestion that people deliberately
> >> contribute to decent lives for food animals INSTEAD OF trying not to
> >> contribute to any...becoming veg*ns....becoming "ARAs".
> >
> >See above.
> >
> >> That being
> >> the case, it's pretty damn obvious he is opposed to people considering
> >> that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the
> >> elimination of animals raised for food.
> >
> >Then why does he eat beef and refuse to apologise for doing so?
>
> Dutch has convinced me that he's an "ARA" who is dishonest about
> it. I consider him to be extremely dishonest, and what he says he does
> and does not eat is absolutely meaningless. I believe that he and
> whoever else works with him have created the character "Dutch" (the
> same is true of Goo) and the character doesn't necessarily have a
> thing to do with the person posting as that character. To me he is of
> course just another "ARA" playing a deceptive role in the ngs.
>
> [...]
> >> Since I don't think of
> >> raising animals for food and raising children as sex slaves in the
> >> same way BECAUSE there is such a huge difference between
> >> the way life would be for the beings involved, your fantasy about
> >> child sex slaves, and even sex slave pigs, is nothing but more
> >> "AR" grotesque distortions of the truth. Along the same lines as
> >> the retarded fantasies about children killing their parents and then
> >> crying about being orphans....you people just want to change the
> >> subject to something you feel people will consider worse, and
> >> insist that it should be thought of in the same way. If you don't
> >> want it to be thought of in the same way, why in the **** would
> >> you even try to make the comparison?
> >>
> >> Answer: you would not.
> >
> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
> >the best example to choose
>
> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
>
> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
>
> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".

The fact you have to face is that if your rationale for raising animals
for meat works for animals than it can also work for humans. You can
whine all you like about others pointing out that fact.
>
> >but the general point that the logic
> >of the larder can 'justify' any sort of mistreatment of humans or
> >animals
> >provided that (a) they were specifically bred with the mistreatment
> >in mind and (b) the mistreatment is not so severe that they would have
> >been better off never to have been born. Do you accept this conclusion?
>
> I believe that if everyone learns to appreciate the fact that life
> has a positive value for some of the animals we raise for food,
> and that it can have for many many more if people deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for them, it would be disastrous for
> "AR". And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
> out. *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>> > No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we
>> > are
>> > capable of compassion for them.
>>
>> There is no *we* sunshine, on usenet you speak only for you.
>>
>> Well good on you Dave, if you owned an animal I would uphold
>> your right
>> to treat it in any way you liked.
>>
>> However, if I didn't like what you were doing to the animal
>> and because
>> you are a human being, meaning you are probably of some use to
>> me, and
>> because I value your life above that of any other living
>> entity, then I
>> might try and *peacefully* persuade you to stop whatever it
>> was you are
>> doing that caused me my self-inflicted anger.
>>
>> I might even consider making you an offer in exchange of you
>> leaving
>> the animal alone, eg mowing your lawns, a few dollars perhaps,
>> rational
>> argument eg dogs have been known to save human lives, on the
>> other hand
>> and probably most likely I would yell at you to stop being
>> such a
>> ****en cowardice moron.
>>
>> You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers
>> fraudsters of
>> human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm, deserve
>> to be in
>> jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but
>> contempt,
>> ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY
>> humans do.
>
> Why do you consider that animals deserve no protection from
> harm?
========================
That's not the same as rights, fool.


>
>> Yea yea I know there are scum on here who claim animals have
>> rights,
>> but they only do so because they've heard some other scum say
>> it.
>>
>> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not
>> make
>> them *right*.
>
> See above.
============
ditto...
>

On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
>*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
>of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?

I count both.

>Are the latter
>of no value?

No.

>> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
>> >
>> >No it wouldn't.
>>
>> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
>> think you believe it either.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
>> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
>> >> out.
>> >
>> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
>>
>> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
>> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
>> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>
>What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
>by and owed to humans

Why do you think that fact sux?

>even though all we have really done is
>influenced evolution.
>
>> >not because it
>> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
>>
>> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
>
>That is your problem.
>
>> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
>> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
>> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
>> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
>> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
>> >
>> >I am not opposed to considering that.
>>
>> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
>> encouraging people to consider it sux?
>
>What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.

The animals would not live otherwise. Why do you think that fact
sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

On 17 Oct 2005 10:13:22 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
>> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
>> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
>> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
>> >the best example to choose
>>
>> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
>>
>> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
>> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
>>
>> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
>> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
>> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".
>
>The fact you have to face is that if your rationale for raising animals
>for meat works for animals than it can also work for humans.

If so, then so does whatever you think about it. So what is your
view on raising animals for meat?

>You can
>whine all you like about others pointing out that fact.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>
>[..]
>
>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
>> some
>> of them don't.
>
>Please answer a few questions

At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.

>about the line between animals that benefit
>and those that don't.
>
>What does that mean, they benefit?

The life has positive value to the animal.

>What formula do you use to determine
>"benefit"?

You pasted the idea that the method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
Your question proves you do not understand what you pasted, so
why did you paste it, and where did you copy the idea from?

>Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
>benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.
>
>Where is your line? How do you manage to stay on the right side of it?
>
>What happens to me if I go on the wrong side of that line? Am I a bad
>person?
>
>What if my line is a completely different place than yours? Is that OK?

>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all". Which
>is better?

Neither.

>Why?

Because they are both wrong.

You're insistence that most people believe "all" animals are ""benefitting"
and not benefitting" is a lie.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
>>> some
>>> of them don't.
>>
>>Please answer a few questions
>
> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.

Why don't you answer all of them?

>>about the line between animals that benefit
>>and those that don't.
>>
>>What does that mean, they benefit?
>
> The life has positive value to the animal.

How do you know?

>>What formula do you use to determine
>>"benefit"?
>
> You pasted the idea that the method of husbandry determines
> whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
> Your question proves you do not understand what you pasted, so
> why did you paste it, and where did you copy the idea from?

OK, which animals in your opinion are on which side of the line?

>>Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
>>benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.

Answer please
>>
>>Where is your line? How do you manage to stay on the right side of it?

Answer please

>>
>>What happens to me if I go on the wrong side of that line? Am I a bad
>>person?

Answer please

>>
>>What if my line is a completely different place than yours? Is that OK?

Answer please

>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>Which
>>is better?
>
> Neither.
>
>>Why?
>
> Because they are both wrong.

Why? According to what authority, what standard of measurement?

> You're insistence that most people believe "all" animals are
> ""benefitting"
> and not benefitting" is a lie.

Give evidence to support your argument.