Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: PETA Freaks Out Over Assassin's Creed
32 views
Skip to first unread message
dh
Mar 25, 2013, 1:53:00 PM3/25/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>
>
>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>
>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>
>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>> Bloomingdale�s and Macy�s settle fur false advertising suit
>
>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
"far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>This is just
>one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
PeTA encourages and helps terrorists. I'd like to point out that we never
hear of real animal welfare people doing terrorist actions, but only
eliminationists. Also real animal welfare people would never release animals
from fur farms because they know and care about the fact that not only would the
majority of them suffer a terrible death, but also that the small percentage of
them that survive would cause suffering and death for local wildlife and
domestic animals. Eliminationists are probably too stupid to appreciate, and ARE
necessarily too inconsiderate to care about such results from their actions.
. . .
>Any questions, buddy?
Eliminationist terrorism against medical research causes MORE suffering, not
less. Of course it causes the deliberately caused suffering to researchers who
devote their lives to finding ways of reducing and relieving suffering for
humans and other animals. It also causes more suffering to research animals,
since tests need to be re-done and more animals need to be tested. It also
causes more suffering in the future due to delays in progress which result in
more suffering for countless sick humans and other animals in the future as a
result of the delays. In case you're in favor of PeTA championing such
terrorism, here are some more things you should try to take into consideration:
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
>From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has
improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved
cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain
disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field, the prevention of
genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only because of humane
work on animals.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their
assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of "experiments"
banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
...
Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people believe
that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie. Animals do not
give information that is 100% accurate when applied to humans, but they
do provide invaluable information that cannot be replaced by computer
modelling, cell culture or human experimentation. Mice have virtually the
same genes as humans, which is why they are so useful for exploring
human physiology.
Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology
or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they could not have
made their discoveries without animals. Polio would still be claiming hundreds
of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for animal research by the Nobel
laureate
Albert Sabin. "There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use
of innumerable animals," he once said."
...
The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of animal
research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects were revealed,
the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on pregnant animals for the first
time. Birth defects were quickly seen in mice and rabbits. This prompted an
overhaul of the legislation and is the basis for our laws on drug development.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1786503,00.html#article_continue
���������������������������������������������������������
Some of the URLs may not be good any more but that's what they were when I found
the information, and the info will always remain true.
>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>
>
>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>
>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>
>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>> Bloomingdale�s and Macy�s settle fur false advertising suit
>
>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
"far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>This is just
>one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
PeTA encourages and helps terrorists. I'd like to point out that we never
hear of real animal welfare people doing terrorist actions, but only
eliminationists. Also real animal welfare people would never release animals
from fur farms because they know and care about the fact that not only would the
majority of them suffer a terrible death, but also that the small percentage of
them that survive would cause suffering and death for local wildlife and
domestic animals. Eliminationists are probably too stupid to appreciate, and ARE
necessarily too inconsiderate to care about such results from their actions.
. . .
>Any questions, buddy?
Eliminationist terrorism against medical research causes MORE suffering, not
less. Of course it causes the deliberately caused suffering to researchers who
devote their lives to finding ways of reducing and relieving suffering for
humans and other animals. It also causes more suffering to research animals,
since tests need to be re-done and more animals need to be tested. It also
causes more suffering in the future due to delays in progress which result in
more suffering for countless sick humans and other animals in the future as a
result of the delays. In case you're in favor of PeTA championing such
terrorism, here are some more things you should try to take into consideration:
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
>From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has
improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved
cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain
disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field, the prevention of
genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only because of humane
work on animals.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their
assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of "experiments"
banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
...
Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people believe
that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie. Animals do not
give information that is 100% accurate when applied to humans, but they
do provide invaluable information that cannot be replaced by computer
modelling, cell culture or human experimentation. Mice have virtually the
same genes as humans, which is why they are so useful for exploring
human physiology.
Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology
or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they could not have
made their discoveries without animals. Polio would still be claiming hundreds
of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for animal research by the Nobel
laureate
Albert Sabin. "There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use
of innumerable animals," he once said."
...
The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of animal
research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects were revealed,
the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on pregnant animals for the first
time. Birth defects were quickly seen in mice and rabbits. This prompted an
overhaul of the legislation and is the basis for our laws on drug development.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1786503,00.html#article_continue
���������������������������������������������������������
Some of the URLs may not be good any more but that's what they were when I found
the information, and the info will always remain true.
dh
Mar 25, 2013, 1:54:28 PM3/25/13
to
>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>> late
>> > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>> thinks
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>> minds.
In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>> > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
My guess is they say whatever they think will get people to go to their
website, and then they can try to manipulate their thinking any ways they can
from there. They like to target children because if they can trick people into
believing that elimination is the most ethically possible approach humans can
take while they're still young and easier to influence, after the poor kids have
put their faith in that for a while they will develop cognitive dissonance which
will cause them to want to dismiss anything that suggests something else could
be ethically equivalent or superior. For example providing decent lives of
positive value for billions of domestic animals could be considered ethically
equivalent or superior to the complete elimination of domestic animals, but
after people have put their faith in elimination being ethically supreme their
congnitive dissonance will work to prevent them from ever considering that any
other approach could be better.
>> > > > > > > Do you know anybody that supports PETA that isn't a moron? It's
>> pretty
>> > > > > > > much their core membership.
One of the misnomer addicts in aaev claims to have a PhD in math, yet also
claims he doesn't:
"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything."
Could anyone who is honestly that clueless about such a basic aspect of life
still be capable of obtaining a PhD? I don't see how, since we discussed that
aspect in fifth or sixth grade regarding slavery in the United States, and none
of the kids in the class had any problem with it. If any kids in the school
would have had a problem with it they were probably in special ed, and it's hard
to believe any of the special ed kids went on to obtain PhDs...
>> > > > > > I'm proud to say that I honestly don't think that I know anyone who
>> > > > > > supports PETA. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I don't know people
>> who
>> > > > > > want animals to be treated humanely and ethically, but that's a
>> > > > > > different matter entirely.
Absolutely it is. Eliminationists hate it when people do anything that
encourages appreciating lives of positive value for domestic animals, livestock
in particular. They're maniacally opposed to the suggestion that the animals'
lives be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. And imo it's not
because they are unaware that millions of livestock animals already experience
decent lives only because they're raised for food, but they don't want people in
general to appreciate that aspect of human influence on animals because it works
against the elimination objective. If they honestly cared about providing decent
lives for livestock they would encourage people to buy products that contribute
to them, but notice that they NEVER do that...or at least I've never heard of
them doing it.
>> > > > > > PETA is PETA,
Notice they use the lower case e in PeTA. I believe it's good to represent
it that way. It was probably by mistake somehow on their part since honesty is
not something they appear to care much about, but since they don't want domestic
animals to exist at all it's almost an honest gesture for "ethical" to be lower
case since they don't want potential future domestic animals treated ethically,
or to ever experience any sort of life at all. Really to be most honest about
their own personal misnomer that organization should probably present it as:
PetA. A good way to represent those people in general is:
pEda - people for the EXTINCTION of domestic animals
>> > > > > > and they're morons all the
>> way
>> > > > > > down to the bone.
They feel that they're at war, and will do whatever they can think of to try
to eliminate domestic animals. They also support eliminationist terrorism. They
are the enemy of domestic animals since they want to eliminate them from my pov,
and they are also an enemy of the human race. What about wildlife? If you think
it's better for wildlife to overpopulate areas to the point of causing
starvation and disease, along with getting hit by vehicles etc, then they're not
an enemy to wildlife. But if you think human hunting is more humane than
starvation and disease, and even non-human predators, then you could view
eliminationists as being an enemy to wildlife as well as to all domestic animals
and the human race. Maybe it's no wonder they target children when that's all
they really have to "offer"...
>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>> late
>> > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>> thinks
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>> minds.
In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>> > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
My guess is they say whatever they think will get people to go to their
website, and then they can try to manipulate their thinking any ways they can
from there. They like to target children because if they can trick people into
believing that elimination is the most ethically possible approach humans can
take while they're still young and easier to influence, after the poor kids have
put their faith in that for a while they will develop cognitive dissonance which
will cause them to want to dismiss anything that suggests something else could
be ethically equivalent or superior. For example providing decent lives of
positive value for billions of domestic animals could be considered ethically
equivalent or superior to the complete elimination of domestic animals, but
after people have put their faith in elimination being ethically supreme their
congnitive dissonance will work to prevent them from ever considering that any
other approach could be better.
>> > > > > > > Do you know anybody that supports PETA that isn't a moron? It's
>> pretty
>> > > > > > > much their core membership.
One of the misnomer addicts in aaev claims to have a PhD in math, yet also
claims he doesn't:
"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything."
Could anyone who is honestly that clueless about such a basic aspect of life
still be capable of obtaining a PhD? I don't see how, since we discussed that
aspect in fifth or sixth grade regarding slavery in the United States, and none
of the kids in the class had any problem with it. If any kids in the school
would have had a problem with it they were probably in special ed, and it's hard
to believe any of the special ed kids went on to obtain PhDs...
>> > > > > > I'm proud to say that I honestly don't think that I know anyone who
>> > > > > > supports PETA. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I don't know people
>> who
>> > > > > > want animals to be treated humanely and ethically, but that's a
>> > > > > > different matter entirely.
Absolutely it is. Eliminationists hate it when people do anything that
encourages appreciating lives of positive value for domestic animals, livestock
in particular. They're maniacally opposed to the suggestion that the animals'
lives be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. And imo it's not
because they are unaware that millions of livestock animals already experience
decent lives only because they're raised for food, but they don't want people in
general to appreciate that aspect of human influence on animals because it works
against the elimination objective. If they honestly cared about providing decent
lives for livestock they would encourage people to buy products that contribute
to them, but notice that they NEVER do that...or at least I've never heard of
them doing it.
>> > > > > > PETA is PETA,
Notice they use the lower case e in PeTA. I believe it's good to represent
it that way. It was probably by mistake somehow on their part since honesty is
not something they appear to care much about, but since they don't want domestic
animals to exist at all it's almost an honest gesture for "ethical" to be lower
case since they don't want potential future domestic animals treated ethically,
or to ever experience any sort of life at all. Really to be most honest about
their own personal misnomer that organization should probably present it as:
PetA. A good way to represent those people in general is:
pEda - people for the EXTINCTION of domestic animals
>> > > > > > and they're morons all the
>> way
>> > > > > > down to the bone.
They feel that they're at war, and will do whatever they can think of to try
to eliminate domestic animals. They also support eliminationist terrorism. They
are the enemy of domestic animals since they want to eliminate them from my pov,
and they are also an enemy of the human race. What about wildlife? If you think
it's better for wildlife to overpopulate areas to the point of causing
starvation and disease, along with getting hit by vehicles etc, then they're not
an enemy to wildlife. But if you think human hunting is more humane than
starvation and disease, and even non-human predators, then you could view
eliminationists as being an enemy to wildlife as well as to all domestic animals
and the human race. Maybe it's no wonder they target children when that's all
they really have to "offer"...
George Plimpton
Mar 25, 2013, 3:39:22 PM3/25/13
to
On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>> late
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>> minds.
>
> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>
> My guess is
You don't know your flabby doughy cracker ass from your pimply face,
Fuckwit.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>> late
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>> minds.
>
> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>
> My guess is
Fuckwit.
George Plimpton
Mar 25, 2013, 3:39:23 PM3/25/13
to
On 3/25/2013 10:53 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
But one thing we *DO* know is that existence - "getting to experience
life" - is not a benefit for them. It isn't because it *cannot* be, by
definition.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>
>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>
>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised
You don't know *anything* about how they're raised, *Goo*.
>
>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>
>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>
>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised
But one thing we *DO* know is that existence - "getting to experience
life" - is not a benefit for them. It isn't because it *cannot* be, by
definition.
Dave U. Random
Mar 26, 2013, 1:10:41 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>> Bloomingdale�s and Macy�s settle fur false advertising suit
>>
>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>lives of positive value.
The gist of it is that some animals domesticate better than other
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>> Bloomingdale�s and Macy�s settle fur false advertising suit
>>
>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>lives of positive value.
animals, i.e. not necessarily in theory but only in fact. All animals
are individuals first just like people are individuals first. Thus a
friendly mountain lion might make a better house cat than an unfriendly
tabby, albeit that is unlikely on account of the cougar's tremendous
appetite, size, and natural inclination to be out in the forest hidden
from anything they aren't intent on killing and eating. Even so, that
doesn't mean that a lonesome cougar couldn't befriend a human who was
willing to make friends with a big, long, wild, tawny, cat. Stranger
friendships have developed in this world, "Ligers" for example. The
hard part would be keeping them well-fed and well out of trouble. Such
normally self-sufficient creatures belong in the open wild habitats
into which they were born, and never under human influence or control.
It is good in some cases where wild animals in need of help are helped
by humans to wildlife refuges and so forth, but that should always
remain the exception and never the rule. All life wants to be free.
Typically smaller domesticated cats are different from wildcats in
that they don't have to hunt and kill for food. Common house cats
are usually spoiled by the humans who feed and care for them, and so
they are more inclined to revert to their natural instinct to hunt but
from a more relaxed and playful state, not intent on killing and eating
thus more apt to injure their hapless prey to the point of suffering
that raises the ire of the likes of PETA advocates ad nauseam.
It could be that the domestication of cats is more man's fault than
that of the previously undomesticated wild cats. Foxes are a fine
example of wild animals that are more than willing to be domesticated
and move in as if they were an accepted member of our family. But we
humans understand that allowing a fox to cross that barrier into our
homes would do far more harm than good to the fox. Wild animals must
remain wild not so much for their own survival, but for the long-term
survival and adaptation of their species. Tough love, so to speak.
AFAICT human intervention in nature almost always does more harm than
good. Humans may mean well, but nature is obviously a lot smarter
than humans could ever be, and nature will outlast us all. Why fight
against that which is invincible? All arguments pro or con regarding
animals or nature is in vain. Nature always gets the last word.
As far as ethics goes, survival of the fittest, including brute force,
is all that is real. Everything else is a lie. In the jungle, it's
kill or be killed. Watch some episodes of 'Big Cat Diary' on Animal
Planet and check out what life is like in the real world of big wild
cats. Relative to them, humans are just weak, spoiled, lazy brats.
--
Bub
trotsky
Mar 26, 2013, 1:23:42 PM3/26/13
to
On 3/25/13 12:53 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>
>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>> Bloomingdale�s and Macy�s settle fur false advertising suit
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>
>>
>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>
>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>
>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
> have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
> lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
> domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
> interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
> DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
> "far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
> not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
> lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>
>> This is just
>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>
> PeTA encourages and helps terrorists.
Cite?
>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>
> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
> have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
> lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
> domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
> interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
> DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
> "far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
> not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
> lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>
>> This is just
>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>
> PeTA encourages and helps terrorists.
Hint: anybody can make up any shit they want on the internet.
Lu@lu
Mar 27, 2013, 2:29:43 PM3/27/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:23:42 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:53:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>
>>>
>>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>
>>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>
>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
_________________________________________________________
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)
INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)
"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)
ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
Intersting PeTA facts
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.
http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.
"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.
PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:
-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;
-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;
-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive
http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Some of the URLs might not be good any more, but the info is what matters.
>Hint: anybody can make up any shit they want on the internet.
You seem to be ashamed that PeTA helps terrorists as you should be imo, but
then no one should be in favor of the elimination of domestic animals, imo.
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:53:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>
>>>
>>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>
>>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>
>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>
>>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>
>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
>>domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
>>interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
>>DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
>>"far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
>>not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
>>lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>>
>>>This is just
>>>one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>
>>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>
>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>lives of positive value. But I do know that extremists who don't believe any
>>domestic animals should exist, necessarily CAN NOT develop a realistic
>>interpretation regarding when they do and when they don't. No doubt some of them
>>DO. That's just a basic part of it all, but eliminationists can't even get that
>>"far". Since they can't get even to such a basic fact as that, they're certainly
>>not capable of developing a respectable interpretation of which ones have decent
>>lives that are worth living and which ones don't.
>>
>>>This is just
>>>one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>
>> PeTA encourages and helps terrorists. I'd like to point out that we never
>>hear of real animal welfare people doing terrorist actions, but only
>>eliminationists. Also real animal welfare people would never release animals
>>from fur farms because they know and care about the fact that not only would the
>>majority of them suffer a terrible death, but also that the small percentage of
>>them that survive would cause suffering and death for local wildlife and
>>domestic animals. Eliminationists are probably too stupid to appreciate, and ARE
>>necessarily too inconsiderate to care about such results from their actions.
>>. . .
>
>Cite?
>>hear of real animal welfare people doing terrorist actions, but only
>>eliminationists. Also real animal welfare people would never release animals
>>from fur farms because they know and care about the fact that not only would the
>>majority of them suffer a terrible death, but also that the small percentage of
>>them that survive would cause suffering and death for local wildlife and
>>domestic animals. Eliminationists are probably too stupid to appreciate, and ARE
>>necessarily too inconsiderate to care about such results from their actions.
>>. . .
>
_________________________________________________________
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)
INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)
"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)
ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
Intersting PeTA facts
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.
http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.
"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.
PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:
-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;
-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;
-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive
http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Some of the URLs might not be good any more, but the info is what matters.
>Hint: anybody can make up any shit they want on the internet.
then no one should be in favor of the elimination of domestic animals, imo.
>>_________________________________________________________
>>[...]
>>>From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
>>helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
>>Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
>>fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
>>possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
>>today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
>>veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
>>toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
>>animals.
>>In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
>>all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
>>regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
>>[...]
>>http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>[...]
>>>From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
>>helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
>>Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
>>fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
>>possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
>>today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
>>veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
>>toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
>>animals.
>>In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
>>all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
>>regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
>>[...]
>>http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
Lu@lu
Mar 27, 2013, 2:31:20 PM3/27/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:10:41 +0100 (CET), Dave U. Random
<anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, dh@. wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>
>>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>
>>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>
>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>>
>>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>
>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>lives of positive value.
>
>The gist of it is that some animals domesticate better than other
>animals, i.e. not necessarily in theory but only in fact.
I've often pointed out that we don't raise porcupines for food because it
<anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, dh@. wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>
>>>I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>
>>>http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>
>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>>
>>>Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>
>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>lives of positive value.
>
>The gist of it is that some animals domesticate better than other
>animals, i.e. not necessarily in theory but only in fact.
would be impractical..
. . .
> All life wants to be free.
· 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 begins 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. ·
>Typically smaller domesticated cats are different from wildcats in
>that they don't have to hunt and kill for food. Common house cats
>are usually spoiled by the humans who feed and care for them, and so
>they are more inclined to revert to their natural instinct to hunt but
>from a more relaxed and playful state, not intent on killing and eating
>thus more apt to injure their hapless prey to the point of suffering
>that raises the ire of the likes of PETA advocates ad nauseam.
>
>It could be that the domestication of cats is more man's fault than
>that of the previously undomesticated wild cats. Foxes are a fine
>example of wild animals that are more than willing to be domesticated
>and move in as if they were an accepted member of our family. But we
>humans understand that allowing a fox to cross that barrier into our
>homes would do far more harm than good to the fox. Wild animals must
>remain wild not so much for their own survival, but for the long-term
>survival and adaptation of their species. Tough love, so to speak.
and regardless of what happens to different wild foxes. The question is NOT
whether it would be better for "them" to be raised by humans or wild, but the
question is whether it would be better for them to be raised by humans or to
never exist at all.
. . .
>All arguments pro or con regarding
>animals or nature is in vain.
The question is whether it's better to be raised by humans or never exist at
>animals or nature is in vain.
all, regardless of what happens to wild foxes. To wild foxes it matters no more
what happens to human raised foxes, than it matters to wild wolves what happens
to domestic poodles.
>Nature always gets the last word.
extinct, but there's strong evidence that they have.
>As far as ethics goes, survival of the fittest, including brute force,
>is all that is real. Everything else is a lie.
force.
>In the jungle, it's
>kill or be killed. Watch some episodes of 'Big Cat Diary' on Animal
>Planet and check out what life is like in the real world of big wild
>cats. Relative to them, humans are just weak, spoiled, lazy brats.
around since humans can manipulate their environment better than any other
creatures we know of. And btw wild big cats don't have anything to do with
domestic small ones either. You're trying to encourage the idea that things have
something to do with each other when they don't. Were you honestly unaware of
that? Or were you already aware of it but hoping that I wasn't, and if so what
if you could have persuaded me to believe you had a significant point? Are you
an eliminationist?
Lu@lu
Mar 27, 2013, 2:31:29 PM3/27/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>
>
>I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>which PETA was founded.
The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
The difference between animal welfare organizations and eliminationists who hide
their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights" IS the animals.
AW means decent lives for billions of domestic animals and the misnomer means no
domestic animals at all. So what are eliminationists good for? For wildlife?
Only if you don't have confidence in forestry services having better opinions
about hunting regulations than people who want to see the complete elimination
of domestic animals, and who ignorantly can't comprehend any benefits to human
hunting.
>It's an acronym--you can look it up.
What they want people to mistakenly believe is that they want to encourage
the ethical treatment of all animals including domestic animals, and they tell
us it means: people for the ethical treatment of animals. But! Notice that PeTA
uses the lower case e. That might be a weird coincidence because it's hard to
believe they would be honest enough to do it deliberately as a reminder that
they do NOT!!! want to provide ethical treatment for domestic animals. They want
to eliminate them not provide ethical treatment, but it's hard to believe
they're deliberately being honest enough to give us a reminder. They probably
just think it looks good.The following would be about as honest as they could
get If they were to try being honest:
>On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>
>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>
>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>
>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>
>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>
>
>I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>which PETA was founded.
The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
The difference between animal welfare organizations and eliminationists who hide
their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights" IS the animals.
AW means decent lives for billions of domestic animals and the misnomer means no
domestic animals at all. So what are eliminationists good for? For wildlife?
Only if you don't have confidence in forestry services having better opinions
about hunting regulations than people who want to see the complete elimination
of domestic animals, and who ignorantly can't comprehend any benefits to human
hunting.
>It's an acronym--you can look it up.
What they want people to mistakenly believe is that they want to encourage
the ethical treatment of all animals including domestic animals, and they tell
us it means: people for the ethical treatment of animals. But! Notice that PeTA
uses the lower case e. That might be a weird coincidence because it's hard to
believe they would be honest enough to do it deliberately as a reminder that
they do NOT!!! want to provide ethical treatment for domestic animals. They want
to eliminate them not provide ethical treatment, but it's hard to believe
they're deliberately being honest enough to give us a reminder. They probably
just think it looks good.The following would be about as honest as they could
get If they were to try being honest:
Lu@lu
Mar 27, 2013, 2:31:51 PM3/27/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>> late
>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>> thinks
>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>> minds.
>>
>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>You don't know
We know that's all they have to "offer" Gootsy, and we know it's literally
nothing in regards to domestic animals. Nothing is specifically what they have
to "offer" "them", Goob. We know it, and everyone should know it and keep that
aspect foremost in mind since it's a hugely significant aspect of human
influence on animals. They try to pretend they have something to offer Goo, but
a normal grown person can quickly figure out that they offer nothing if they're
willing to think it through for a few seconds. But children might not be able to
think it through and that's what eliminationists are hoping, and that's why they
target children, Goo.
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>> late
>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>> thinks
>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>> minds.
>>
>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>>> > > > > > > > And
>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>
>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>
We know that's all they have to "offer" Gootsy, and we know it's literally
nothing in regards to domestic animals. Nothing is specifically what they have
to "offer" "them", Goob. We know it, and everyone should know it and keep that
aspect foremost in mind since it's a hugely significant aspect of human
influence on animals. They try to pretend they have something to offer Goo, but
a normal grown person can quickly figure out that they offer nothing if they're
willing to think it through for a few seconds. But children might not be able to
think it through and that's what eliminationists are hoping, and that's why they
target children, Goo.
George Plimpton
Mar 27, 2013, 2:59:04 PM3/27/13
to
On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
fact.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/25/2013 12:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>> minds.
>>>
>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>> eliminationists
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>> minds.
>>>
>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>> eliminationists
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>
>>> My guess is
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>
>>> My guess is
>>
>> You don't know your flabby doughy cracker ass from your pimply face,
>> Fuckwit.
>
>> Fuckwit.
>
> We know that's all they
We know that existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
fact.
George Plimpton
Mar 27, 2013, 2:59:05 PM3/27/13
to
On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:10:41 +0100 (CET), Dave U. Random
> <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:43:47 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>>
>>>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>>
>>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>>>
>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>>
>>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>> have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>> lives of positive value.
>>
>> The gist of it is that some animals domesticate better than other
>> animals, i.e. not necessarily in theory but only in fact.
>
> I've often pointed out
No.
>>>> On 3/21/13 1:19 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> they're idiots. They're PETA.
>>>>
>>>> I just heard about this story on the news yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/03/bloomingdales_macys_031510.html
>>>>
>>>>> Retailers Settle Fur Lawsuit
>>>>> Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s settle fur false advertising suit
>>>>
>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course.
>>>
>>> I don't know enough about how commercial fur bearing animals are raised to
>>> have an opinion about whether or not the majority of them appear to benefit from
>>> lives of positive value.
>>
>> The gist of it is that some animals domesticate better than other
>> animals, i.e. not necessarily in theory but only in fact.
>
> I've often pointed out
uste R@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ
Mar 27, 2013, 4:01:50 PM3/27/13
to
On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Lu@Lu.
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics
> Subject: Re: PETA Freaks Out Over Assassin's Creed
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400
> Message-ID: <2oe6l89fkb8pl55tg...@4ax.com>
> References: <anim8rfsk-9C379...@news.easynews.com> <4hn4k818v5st5q9p7...@4ax.com> <anim8rfsk-8EBD9...@news.easynews.com> <1hrek8lnfarge96u7...@4ax.com> <anim8rfsk-3265F...@news.easynews.com> <lrsjk8tj5hno08maa...@4ax.com> <2eip1ax...@news.ezprovider.com> <8agmk8ls4me8mv9qc...@4ax.com> <3o31l8l3ep63nam11...@4ax.com> <51070$5150a7b6$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 126
> NNTP-Posting-Host: b4538b7b.fastusenet.org
> X-Trace: DXC=i=W=[OIERTdPbgH:P?la6jn<aeb7mYScch]]c\SKAo0iDP=L<hT:J^oK2fWgd6h;NkHfleXHWlDPo>B>MUa5lU7fm9[Xh<?fgacU2bA32CfeRg
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@fastusenet.org
> X-Received-Bytes: 8526
> Xref: Hurricane rec.arts.tv:1902582 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176180 can.politics:1459874
--
=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
=====================================================================
> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Lu@Lu.
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics
> Subject: Re: PETA Freaks Out Over Assassin's Creed
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400
> Message-ID: <2oe6l89fkb8pl55tg...@4ax.com>
> References: <anim8rfsk-9C379...@news.easynews.com> <4hn4k818v5st5q9p7...@4ax.com> <anim8rfsk-8EBD9...@news.easynews.com> <1hrek8lnfarge96u7...@4ax.com> <anim8rfsk-3265F...@news.easynews.com> <lrsjk8tj5hno08maa...@4ax.com> <2eip1ax...@news.ezprovider.com> <8agmk8ls4me8mv9qc...@4ax.com> <3o31l8l3ep63nam11...@4ax.com> <51070$5150a7b6$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.1/32.783
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 126
> NNTP-Posting-Host: b4538b7b.fastusenet.org
> X-Trace: DXC=i=W=[OIERTdPbgH:P?la6jn<aeb7mYScch]]c\SKAo0iDP=L<hT:J^oK2fWgd6h;NkHfleXHWlDPo>B>MUa5lU7fm9[Xh<?fgacU2bA32CfeRg
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@fastusenet.org
> X-Received-Bytes: 8526
> Xref: Hurricane rec.arts.tv:1902582 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176180 can.politics:1459874
--
=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
=====================================================================
trotsky
Mar 28, 2013, 9:22:41 AM3/28/13
to
applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
trotsky
Mar 28, 2013, 9:45:51 AM3/28/13
to
On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>
>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>
>>
>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>> which PETA was founded.
>
> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>
>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>
>>
>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>> which PETA was founded.
>
> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
Killing things is never going to be the right answer. As society
evolves, this will become more and more evident. At this point in time,
we are dealing with shitheads that think that gun legislation is some
sort of violation to them. After we've gotten past the point where we
are able to act on how wrong it is to shoot Congress people and kill
children, we will eventually turn to animals and the environment. It's
inevitable. PETA are thought of as extremists now, even though they
aren't but then people think gun legislation means "their guns are going
to be taken from them." It's just ignorance. Even if you mean well,
you just represent an ignorant point of view. Every time I go into the
grocery store, the vegetarian items are being bought out faster. Again,
it's inevitable.
> The difference between animal welfare organizations and eliminationists who hide
> their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights" IS the animals.
I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
> AW
What is AW supposed to mean?
means decent lives for billions of domestic animals and the misnomer
means no
> domestic animals at all.
time I was in Moline, IL and I was driving behind a truck full of pigs
headed for the slaughter house. Pigs are smarter than dogs--they knew
they were going to die. It was one of the most disgusting things I've
ever experienced. There is nothing ethical or humane about any of that
shit. Again you are just behind the curve.
So what are eliminationists good for? For wildlife?
the grand scheme of things. If it helps get you through the night, it's
alright as John Lennon said.
> Only if you don't have confidence in forestry services having better opinions
> about hunting regulations than people who want to see the complete elimination
> of domestic animals, and who ignorantly can't comprehend any benefits to human
> hunting.
animals.
>> It's an acronym--you can look it up.
>
> What they want people to mistakenly believe is that they want to encourage
> the ethical treatment of all animals including domestic animals, and they tell
> us it means: people for the ethical treatment of animals. But! Notice that PeTA
> uses the lower case e. That might be a weird coincidence because it's hard to
> believe they would be honest enough to do it deliberately as a reminder that
> they do NOT!!! want to provide ethical treatment for domestic animals.
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 10:34:43 AM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 6:45 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the
>>>>> organization
>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
>>>> whales!
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>> which PETA was founded.
>>
>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of
>> people want.
>
>
> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
I'm going to help you here. He - Fuckwit David Harrison, who just began
> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the
>>>>> organization
>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
>>>> whales!
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>> which PETA was founded.
>>
>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of
>> people want.
>
>
> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
posting at <chortle> 'Lu@Lu' <snicker> - is anything *BUT* sincere.
Fuckwit hates "animal rights" and "animal rights activists", because the
theory and its adherents don't want him to eat meat - they claim it
violates the "rights" of animals to be raised for human food - and
Fuckwit wants to eat meat.
Before continuing, I will tell you that I do *not* believe in "ar". I
think it's incoherent and ethically bankrupt. I eat meat and I consume
other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
animal welfare, not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
advocate, but he knows better, and everyone who has participated here in
the last 14 years knows better as well.
Fuckwit shambled into alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian 14 years ago -
February or March, 1999 - and thought he had found the "killer argument"
to demolish "ar". He says that because "aras" want to put a stop to
livestock animal farming, there won't be any animals left with rights to
protect, and so they can't really be in favor of animal rights. But he
goes farther. He says that by favoring the elimination of livestock
animals, "aras" are "denying life" to animals that otherwise would have
lived. Fuckwit considers that a great moral crime - he claims to
believe that animals coming into existence and "getting to experience
life" is a good thing to the animals in and of itself, and that by
favoring the elimination of livestock animals, "aras" are committing a
great moral crime against those animals that would have got to live and
"get to experience life."
When he first started blabbering about this, Fuckwit thought he had come
upon *THE* argument against "ar", although he didn't think it up
himself; someone fed it to him. What he didn't know is that the
argument had been demolished a century (at least) earlier. An English
philosopher, essayist and vegetarian named Henry Salt wrote an essay
called "The Logic of the Larder" in which he completely destroyed the
sophism that the meat eater "benefits" the animals he eats by giving
them the "gift of life." You can read it here:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm. It's a very
elegant essay.
Fuckwit has never understood the (incoherent, in my opinion) argument
against the human use of animals, which is why he never has even
attempted to attack it head on. Instead, for 14 years he has been
trying to attack it with his own counterargument that is itself
incoherent, wrong and was demolished a century ago. When he has
attempted to buttress it with his own <chortle> "original thinking", it
has been a complete hash - a dog's breakfast. After I post this, I will
repost "FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs." This will make manifestly clear that
Fuckwit is a confused, incompetent, incoherent, dishonest and above all
insincere critic of "ar".
BTR1701
Mar 28, 2013, 11:21:18 AM3/28/13
to
In article <wIqdnTCtZKYO1MnM...@mchsi.com>,
> It's inevitable.
You really think that we're going to get to the point where you're going
to be able to outlaw people owning and keeping dogs and cats? I'm not
surprised you're in favor of such nonsense, but even you can't possibly
be so stupid to believe it's ever going to be a tenable political
position.
> Every time I go into the grocery store, the vegetarian items are being
> bought out faster.
So what? What the hell does what you shovel into your monstrous gullet
have to do with the elimination of house pets?
trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
> >>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
> >>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
> >>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
> >>>
> >>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
> >>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
> >>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
> >>> whales!
> >>
> >>
> >> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
> >> which PETA was founded.
> >
> > The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people
> > want.
> Me too. we will eventually turn to animals and the environment.
> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
> >>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
> >>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
> >>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
> >>>
> >>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
> >>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
> >>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
> >>> whales!
> >>
> >>
> >> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
> >> which PETA was founded.
> >
> > The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people
> > want.
> It's inevitable.
You really think that we're going to get to the point where you're going
to be able to outlaw people owning and keeping dogs and cats? I'm not
surprised you're in favor of such nonsense, but even you can't possibly
be so stupid to believe it's ever going to be a tenable political
position.
> Every time I go into the grocery store, the vegetarian items are being
> bought out faster.
have to do with the elimination of house pets?
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 11:34:25 AM3/28/13
to
to redefine the relationship between humans and companion animals,
specifically, to say that such animals cannot be property.
anim8rFSK
Mar 28, 2013, 2:28:04 PM3/28/13
to
In article <atropos-6E9263...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
He doesn't know that anyway. It's more likely they're slower to restock.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
anim8rFSK
Mar 28, 2013, 2:28:54 PM3/28/13
to
In article <21ea3$515462ba$414e828e$27...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take care
of them properly.
of them properly.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 2:42:25 PM3/28/13
to
mandating adequate care for children. Penalties are imposed for
violating the law regarding care for children.
I don't buy the "ar" view that domestic animals ought not be property.
I think their status as property works just fine. I only brought it up
in the context of refuting the claim that "aras" want to eliminate
household pets. They do not.
dh
Mar 28, 2013, 5:47:57 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:34:25 -0700, Goo lied:
You're lying to him Goo, and we know it:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal
well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention
and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane
euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are
not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of
animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the
philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are
incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as
companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both
humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People,
May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal
well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention
and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane
euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are
not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of
animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the
philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are
incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as
companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both
humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People,
May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
dh
Mar 28, 2013, 6:00:27 PM3/28/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:04 -0700, Goo agreed:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>We know that
Everyone needs to know it, Goo.
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>> late
>>>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>> minds.
>>>>
>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>> late
>>>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>> minds.
>>>>
>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>>>poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
>>>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > And
>>>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>
Everyone needs to know it, Goo.
dh
Mar 28, 2013, 6:01:34 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>> which PETA was founded.
>>
>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
>
>
>Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>Killing things is never going to be the right answer.
Eventually meat and other products we get from animals will be produced
>On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>> which PETA was founded.
>>
>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
>
>
>Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>Killing things is never going to be the right answer.
without the use of animals imo, so one question is whether or not that would be
better, and if so for what. From the animals' position it's a matter of whether
or not life is worth living for each individual. In some cases it is and in some
cases it's not, but you may not be able to get that far with it. Some can't,
even though THAT is the most basic aspect of the whole thing in regards to the
true ethics of it, imo. Since I believe the majority of farmed animals DO have
lives which are of positive value to them, it doesn't seem like an ethical
improvement to do away with them.
>As society
>evolves, this will become more and more evident. At this point in time,
>we are dealing with shitheads that think that gun legislation is some
>sort of violation to them. After we've gotten past the point where we
>are able to act on how wrong it is to shoot Congress people and kill
>children, we will eventually turn to animals and the environment. It's
>inevitable. PETA are thought of as extremists now, even though they
>aren't but then people think gun legislation means "their guns are going
>to be taken from them." It's just ignorance. Even if you mean well,
>you just represent an ignorant point of view. Every time I go into the
>grocery store, the vegetarian items are being bought out faster.
understands and appreciates that millions of animals experience decent lives
because of being raised for food, people who can't appreciate it are ignorant
and slowing things down. My guess is that the true veg*n minded person is one
who has always hated to eat his meat, and when he got a change stopped doing it.
Whether he believed it or not to begin with, he probably at some point begins to
believe there's something positive about it in regards to farm animals. The
truth is that veg*nism does NOTHING to benefit any farm animals, so if someone
wants to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle they need
to be a conscientious consumer of animal products, NOT a vegan! At this point
I'd like to encourage everyone reading to buy cage free eggs, even if you don't
eat them, in order to support that far more animal friendly way of raising
laying hens.
>Again, it's inevitable.
It slows things down imo...LOL...but then what can we expect from something
that wants to bring those things to a dead stop? I'd like to see ALL animals
raised for food have lives of positive value, which is the complete opposite of
eliminating them. I'd like to see more animal friendly products in super
markets, instead of ONLY vegetarian crap that doesn't do any animals any good.
>> The difference between animal welfare organizations and eliminationists who hide
>> their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights" IS the animals.
>
>
>This isn't about that.
>You know what?
You may mean: what else, so, what else? You? The environment?
>Every time I tell someone that
>I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
>> AW
>
>
>What is AW supposed to mean?
>
>
> means decent lives for billions of domestic animals and the misnomer
>means no
>> domestic animals at all.
>
>
>You're ridiculous. Look up "factory farms" and get back to me. One
>time I was in Moline, IL and I was driving behind a truck full of pigs
>headed for the slaughter house. Pigs are smarter than dogs--they knew
>they were going to die.
There's no way they can.
>It was one of the most disgusting things I've
>ever experienced. There is nothing ethical or humane about any of that
>shit. Again you are just behind the curve.
ride YOU are not only behing the curve, you're in a universe that doesn't exist.
Here's a basic for you to try to learn: pigs not only don't know they're going
to be killed and eaten by humans, but you couldn't explain it to them if you
spent the rest of your life trying. Could you "teach" it to them? Maybe not. We
raised some pigs for several years and out of each litter at least one or two of
the half grown pigs was killed in the pen with its mother and whatever brothers
and sisters were still around. It never bothered the sow, or any of the other
pigs when their sibling was shot in the head, and then its throat was cut to
bleed it out. Sheep are the only things I've heard different about. I've heard
it a couple of times tha sheep know, but no other animals I've heard of do. Pigs
don't, cows don't, and chickens don't I know fom personaly observation as well
as discussions with other people.
> So what are eliminationists good for? For wildlife?
>
>
>I have no idea what an "eliminationist" is, but I doubt it means much in
>the grand scheme of things.
rights" since they certainly don't want rights or anything else for domestic
animals. They do want the elimination of domestic animals though...so....
>If it helps get you through the night, it's
>alright as John Lennon said.
>
>
>> Only if you don't have confidence in forestry services having better opinions
>> about hunting regulations than people who want to see the complete elimination
>> of domestic animals, and who ignorantly can't comprehend any benefits to human
>> hunting.
>
>
>You lost me--I don't see any connection between hunting and domestic
>animals.
all human hunting, are the same people who want to eliminate domestic animals.
They're the same people who commit terrorist acts as well.
>>> It's an acronym--you can look it up.
>>
>> What they want people to mistakenly believe is that they want to encourage
>> the ethical treatment of all animals including domestic animals, and they tell
>> us it means: people for the ethical treatment of animals. But! Notice that PeTA
>> uses the lower case e. That might be a weird coincidence because it's hard to
>> believe they would be honest enough to do it deliberately as a reminder that
>> they do NOT!!! want to provide ethical treatment for domestic animals.
>
>You've officially gone off the deep end. With small "e's".
>Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
>reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
often, but every time I have they've used a small e. If they quit doing that's
just dishonesty from their direction, but I sure HOPE it's because people are
catching on to the distinction between AW and elimination. Even if they did
slimely stop writing it that way I believe I'll continue. Nope I checked and
they're still doing it. You don't know much about this apparently.
dh
Mar 28, 2013, 6:01:40 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:34:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>I eat meat and I consume
>other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>animal welfare,
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>I eat meat and I consume
>other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>animal welfare,
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
>not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
>insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
>advocate, but he knows better,
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
"logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
dh
Mar 28, 2013, 6:01:59 PM3/28/13
to
pretend it's not true.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 9:28:11 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 3:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
Yes, it's a meaningless quote that does not support the claim that PETA
engages in "terrorism."
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
engages in "terrorism."
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 9:28:12 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 3:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/28/2013 7:34 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/28/2013 6:45 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 3/28/2013 6:45 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>> ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>> animal welfare, not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
>> ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>> insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
Both true.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 9:28:12 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 3:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>>> which PETA was founded.
>>>
>>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
>>
>>
>> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>> Killing things is never going to be the right answer.
>
> Eventually meat and other products we get from animals will be produced
> without the use of animals imo, so one question is whether or not that would be
> better, and if so for what. From the animals' position it's a matter of whether
> or not life is worth living for each individual.
No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the organization
>>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is just
>>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed IV. Do
>>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a pirate?
>>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon whales!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the principles on
>>>> which PETA was founded.
>>>
>>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of people want.
>>
>>
>> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>> Killing things is never going to be the right answer.
>
> Eventually meat and other products we get from animals will be produced
> without the use of animals imo, so one question is whether or not that would be
> better, and if so for what. From the animals' position it's a matter of whether
> or not life is worth living for each individual.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 9:28:13 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 3:00 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
Everyone *does* know it, *Goo*, including you.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/27/2013 11:59 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2013 12:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>> On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2013 12:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>
>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>>>> eliminationists
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>
>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>>>> eliminationists
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is
>>>>
>>>> You don't know your flabby doughy cracker ass from your pimply face,
>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>
>>> We know that's all they
>>
>>
>> We know that existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
>> benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
>> fact.
>
> Everyone needs to know it
>> benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
>> fact.
>
Everyone *does* know it, *Goo*, including you.
George Plimpton
Mar 28, 2013, 9:28:15 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 2:47 PM, dh@. wrote:
No.
1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Mar 29, 2013, 6:22:15 AM3/29/13
to
>This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
Sorry to disappoint you...
>I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
We are attempting to stifle a laugh because it is so glaringly obvious
that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
proper brain functioning.
1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Mar 29, 2013, 6:44:36 AM3/29/13
to
come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 8:40:07 AM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you...
>
> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you...
>
> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
because it is so glaringly obvious
> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
> proper brain functioning.
might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
figure, right?
--
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 8:40:56 AM3/29/13
to
William December Starr
Mar 29, 2013, 10:10:19 AM3/29/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>> property.
>
> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
> care of them properly.
To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
-- wds
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>> property.
>
> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
> care of them properly.
i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
-- wds
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 10:35:01 AM3/29/13
to
aversion. In others, it's more of "Oh, fuck, here we go again...another
clueless urbanite."
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 10:38:25 AM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>
>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>
>
> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>
>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>
>
> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>> because it is so glaringly obvious
>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>> proper brain functioning.
>
>
> So you're saying you don't eat meat, then? Hey, here's an example that
> might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
> figure, right?
coronary arteries chomping down greasy cheeseburgers in the White House
and had a heart attack. One thing we know for certain: there is no
ethical pretense in his vegetarianism, because Clinton can't even
/spell/ the word 'ethics', let alone have any.
anim8rFSK
Mar 29, 2013, 1:22:30 PM3/29/13
to
In article <kj47cb$gn9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
How would you word this? If you can't own a cat, how do you make it's
human give it it's shots and tags and such?
human give it it's shots and tags and such?
David Johnston
Mar 29, 2013, 1:29:52 PM3/29/13
to
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 1:36:17 PM3/29/13
to
but the state can punish you for failing to provide adequate care to
your child. A child can be removed from your care if you don't
adequately care for the child.
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 2:35:06 PM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>
>>
>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>
> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>
>>
>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>
> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>>> because it is so glaringly obvious
>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>> proper brain functioning.
>>
>>
>> So you're saying you don't eat meat, then? Hey, here's an example that
>> might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
>> figure, right?
>
> Clinton doesn't eat meat, now, because the fat pudgy fuck clogged his
> coronary arteries chomping down greasy cheeseburgers in the White House
> and had a heart attack. One thing we know for certain: there is no
> ethical pretense in his vegetarianism, because Clinton can't even
> /spell/ the word 'ethics', let alone have any.
you think the majority of carnivores aren't fucking themselves over from
a health perspective?
Think about how stupid what you just said is, and try again so you don't
sound like a fucking idiot the next time. In the meantime, thanks for
justifying my postion.
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 2:36:24 PM3/29/13
to
everybody know when there is a way to distinguish you guys from pond
scum. TIA.
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 2:45:23 PM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>
>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>
>>>
>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>
>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>
>
> How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
That's actually pretty funny. Long ago, I elaborated on the fact that
> On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>
>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>
>>>
>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>
>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>
>
> How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, or "veganism", is a marker for
extreme left-wing thought. Not all doctrinaire left-wing extremists are
"vegans", but all "vegans" are doctrinaire left-wing extremists.
Conservatives and libertarians who are vegetarian virtually always are
for health reasons, real or imagined.
>>>> because it is so glaringly obvious
>>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>>> proper brain functioning.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying you don't eat meat, then? Hey, here's an example that
>>> might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
>>> figure, right?
>>
>> Clinton doesn't eat meat, now, because the fat pudgy fuck clogged his
>> coronary arteries chomping down greasy cheeseburgers in the White House
>> and had a heart attack. One thing we know for certain: there is no
>> ethical pretense in his vegetarianism, because Clinton can't even
>> /spell/ the word 'ethics', let alone have any.
>
>
> George, you're just as motherfucking stupid as the other guy. What, do
> you think the majority of carnivores aren't fucking themselves over from
> a health perspective?
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 2:46:20 PM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/2013 11:36 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/29/13 9:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 3:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh because it is so glaringly obvious
>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>> proper brain functioning.
>>
>> In some cases, that's what accounts for the eye rolling and gaze
>> aversion. In others, it's more of "Oh, fuck, here we go again...another
>> clueless urbanite."
>
>
> Oh, right, the anonyshits on Usenet have it all figured out.
Everyone who has observed that "vegans" are all clueless left-wing
> On 3/29/13 9:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 3:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh because it is so glaringly obvious
>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>> proper brain functioning.
>>
>> In some cases, that's what accounts for the eye rolling and gaze
>> aversion. In others, it's more of "Oh, fuck, here we go again...another
>> clueless urbanite."
>
>
> Oh, right, the anonyshits on Usenet have it all figured out.
urbanites has at least figured out something of value.
Mason Barge
Mar 29, 2013, 6:27:33 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:22:30 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
He's either leading up to marriage or adoption.
wrote:
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 8:17:09 PM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/13 1:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>>
>>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>>
>>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>>
>>
>> How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
>
> That's actually pretty funny. Long ago, I elaborated on the fact that
> so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, or "veganism", is a marker for
> extreme left-wing thought. Not all doctrinaire left-wing extremists are
> "vegans", but all "vegans" are doctrinaire left-wing extremists.
>
> Conservatives and libertarians who are vegetarian virtually always are
> for health reasons, real or imagined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>>
>>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>>
>>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>>
>>
>> How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
>
> That's actually pretty funny. Long ago, I elaborated on the fact that
> so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, or "veganism", is a marker for
> extreme left-wing thought. Not all doctrinaire left-wing extremists are
> "vegans", but all "vegans" are doctrinaire left-wing extremists.
>
> Conservatives and libertarians who are vegetarian virtually always are
> for health reasons, real or imagined.
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of
cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease,
hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[39]
dementias such as Alzheimer's disease and other disorders.[40] Non-lean
red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with
increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the
lungs.[41] Other studies have shown no significant differences between
vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular
disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate
cancer.[34] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating
Seventh-day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression
tests and had better mood profiles.[42] However, vegetarians are
frequently deficient in vitamin B12 and often show weakening of
bones[43] and depression.[44]
"George," do you have any idea how many dozens of idiots like you I've
seen trolling with their own stupidity? Say something that shows you
have some knowledge of the subject, fuckwit.
Game, set, match.
trotsky
Mar 29, 2013, 8:17:26 PM3/29/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 29, 2013, 8:50:41 PM3/29/13
to
In article <5ebc6$5155d0be$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
But your child is effectively owned. You can't just leave it on a
street corner with impunity. You can't buy and sell it. How do you
have a non owned cat? How do you transfer it? If you can't own a cat,
how do you give somebody $5 and they hand the damn thing over? If a cat
sneaks into your house, do you have to feed and house it the rest of
it's life because it's under your roof?
street corner with impunity. You can't buy and sell it. How do you
have a non owned cat? How do you transfer it? If you can't own a cat,
how do you give somebody $5 and they hand the damn thing over? If a cat
sneaks into your house, do you have to feed and house it the rest of
it's life because it's under your roof?
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 8:50:55 PM3/29/13
to
Nothing to do with "veganism".
>
>
> "George," do you have any idea how many dozens of idiots like you I've
> seen trolling with their own stupidity?
studying?
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 8:51:17 PM3/29/13
to
On 3/29/2013 5:17 PM, trotsky wrote:
George Plimpton
Mar 29, 2013, 8:58:26 PM3/29/13
to
> You can't just leave it on a street corner with impunity.
typically *may* put out on a street corner with a "Free!" sign inviting
someone to take it. I got rid of some patio furniture and an old
lawnmower doing just that. I owned those things.
> You can't buy and sell it.
> How do you have a non owned cat?
to ownership. The law regarding liability for damages caused by a cat,
as opposed to a dog, is much less demanding precisely because cats are
considered less controllable and therefore "ownership" doesn't impose
the same level of liability as owning a dog.
Anyway, I think you're missing the point. All of you are.
> How do you transfer it? If you can't own a cat,
> how do you give somebody $5 and they hand the damn thing over? If a cat
> sneaks into your house, do you have to feed and house it the rest of
> it's life because it's under your roof?
may have custody of as well as responsibility for domestic animals, but
not ownership. I think the closest analogue in today's world would be
foster children. If you no longer wish to be a foster parent, there are
provisions in place whereby you contact some government agency and they
take custody of the child. Understand: the belief by "aras" that
domestic animals should not be seen as property is not one I support or
with which I agree.
trotsky
Mar 30, 2013, 9:04:24 AM3/30/13
to
Fuckwit alert.
The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
Mar 30, 2013, 6:36:39 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:40:07 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>
>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>
>
>By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
Jealous, are you?
>On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>
>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>
>
>By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
> because it is so glaringly obvious
>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>> proper brain functioning.
>
>
>So you're saying you don't eat meat, then? Hey, here's an example that
>might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
>figure, right?
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 10:53:44 AM3/30/13
to
1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Mar 30, 2013, 6:45:11 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:36:24 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/29/13 9:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 3:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh because it is so glaringly obvious
>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>> proper brain functioning.
>>
>> In some cases, that's what accounts for the eye rolling and gaze
>> aversion. In others, it's more of "Oh, fuck, here we go again...another
>> clueless urbanite."
>
>
>Oh, right, the anonyshits on Usenet have it all figured out. Let
>everybody know when there is a way to distinguish you guys from pond
>scum. TIA.
Veganism does seem to ramp up the PMS...
>On 3/29/13 9:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 3:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>
>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>
>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh because it is so glaringly obvious
>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>> proper brain functioning.
>>
>> In some cases, that's what accounts for the eye rolling and gaze
>> aversion. In others, it's more of "Oh, fuck, here we go again...another
>> clueless urbanite."
>
>
>Oh, right, the anonyshits on Usenet have it all figured out. Let
>everybody know when there is a way to distinguish you guys from pond
>scum. TIA.
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 11:47:51 AM3/30/13
to
On 29 Mar 2013 10:10:19 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
>In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
>> Goo wrote:
>>
>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>> property.
>>
>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>> care of them properly.
>
>To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>
>-- wds
Goo's lying anyway. Those people want to see the elimination of all domestic
>>
>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>> property.
>>
>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>> care of them properly.
>
>To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>
>-- wds
animals and he and I both know it, but it seems they've now begun to lie about
that too. They used to be honest and proud of it but now they've started lying
about it apparently. It must have started to hurt contributions because people
are beginning to understand what they really want. One of the regular
eliminationist in aaev was honest about it once years ago, saying:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 11:48:04 AM3/30/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:28:12 -0700, Goo agreed:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:01:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:34:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>I eat meat and I consume
>>>other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>>>ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>>>animal welfare,
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>>
>>>not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
>>>insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
>>>advocate, but he knows better,
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
>>of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST
>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>Both true.
You agree with yourself about every quote of yours that I present and
everyone knows it, Goo.
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:01:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:34:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>I eat meat and I consume
>>>other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>>>ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>>>animal welfare,
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>>
>>>not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
>>>insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
>>>advocate, but he knows better,
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""aras" confront him with a truth that . . . consumption
>>of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests." - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST
>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>Both true.
You agree with yourself about every quote of yours that I present and
everyone knows it, Goo.
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 11:49:02 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 03:44:36 -0700, "1,929 murdered in Obama's organized
communities" <Tawana....@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:23:42 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
communities" <Tawana....@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>
>>>>> PeTA encourages and helps terrorists. I'd like to point out that we never
>>>>> hear of real animal welfare people doing terrorist actions, but only
>>>>> eliminationists. Also real animal welfare people would never release animals
>>>> >from fur farms because they know and care about the fact that not only would the
>>>>> majority of them suffer a terrible death, but also that the small percentage of
>>>>> them that survive would cause suffering and death for local wildlife and
>>>>> domestic animals. Eliminationists are probably too stupid to appreciate, and ARE
>>>>> necessarily too inconsiderate to care about such results from their actions.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA
>>> "We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
>>> (USA Today, September 3, 1991)
>>>
>>>
>>> INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
>>> OF ANIMALS (PETA)
>>>
>>> "I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
>>> out or burn them down."
>>> ( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)
>>>
>>> "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
>>> it."
>>> (Vogue, September, 1989)
>>>
>>> "I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
>>> (Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)
>>>
>>>
>>> ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
>>> OF ANIMALS (PETA)
>>>
>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>
>>
>>A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>
>It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
He's right to be ashamed of their support of terrorists, yet at the same
>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>
>>
>>A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>
>It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
time he shames himself trying to dishonestly deny that they do. Typical
eliminationist behavior.
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 11:49:36 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:40:56 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/29/13 5:44 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>
>>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>>
>>>
>>> A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>> applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>>
>> It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>> come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
>
>
>God damn, my posts are even funnier the second time around.
Trying to dishonestly deny PeTA's support of terrorists isn't funny. It's
>On 3/29/13 5:44 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>
>>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>>
>>>
>>> A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>> applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>>
>> It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>> come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
>
>
>God damn, my posts are even funnier the second time around.
pathetic and contemptible as many dishonest AND funny things are, but that one's
not funny. Especially since no doubt your dishonesty is because you're afraid
some people might stop contributing to them if they knew PeTA supports
terrorism. How do you want people to feel about Newkirk supporting hoof and
mouth disease, btw?
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 11:49:54 AM3/30/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:28:13 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:00:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:04 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>>>>>poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
>>>>>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>>>>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>>>>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>>>>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>>>>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>>>>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>>>>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > And
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is they say whatever they think will get people to go to their
>>>>>>website, and then they can try to manipulate their thinking any ways they can
>>>>>>from there. They like to target children because if they can trick people into
>>>>>>believing that elimination is the most ethically possible approach humans can
>>>>>>take while they're still young and easier to influence, after the poor kids have
>>>>>>put their faith in that for a while they will develop cognitive dissonance which
>>>>>>will cause them to want to dismiss anything that suggests something else could
>>>>>>be ethically equivalent or superior. For example providing decent lives of
>>>>>>positive value for billions of domestic animals could be considered ethically
>>>>>>equivalent or superior to the complete elimination of domestic animals, but
>>>>>>after people have put their faith in elimination being ethically supreme their
>>>>>>congnitive dissonance will work to prevent them from ever considering that any
>>>>>>other approach could be better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Do you know anybody that supports PETA that isn't a moron? It's
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > much their core membership.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the misnomer addicts in aaev claims to have a PhD in math, yet also
>>>>>>claims he doesn't:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>>>>"lives of negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could anyone who is honestly that clueless about such a basic aspect of life
>>>>>>still be capable of obtaining a PhD? I don't see how, since we discussed that
>>>>>>aspect in fifth or sixth grade regarding slavery in the United States, and none
>>>>>>of the kids in the class had any problem with it. If any kids in the school
>>>>>>would have had a problem with it they were probably in special ed, and it's hard
>>>>>>to believe any of the special ed kids went on to obtain PhDs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > I'm proud to say that I honestly don't think that I know anyone who
>>>>>>>> > > > > > supports PETA. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I don't know people
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> > > > > > want animals to be treated humanely and ethically, but that's a
>>>>>>>> > > > > > different matter entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely it is. Eliminationists hate it when people do anything that
>>>>>>encourages appreciating lives of positive value for domestic animals, livestock
>>>>>>in particular. They're maniacally opposed to the suggestion that the animals'
>>>>>>lives be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. And imo it's not
>>>>>>because they are unaware that millions of livestock animals already experience
>>>>>>decent lives only because they're raised for food, but they don't want people in
>>>>>>general to appreciate that aspect of human influence on animals because it works
>>>>>>against the elimination objective. If they honestly cared about providing decent
>>>>>>lives for livestock they would encourage people to buy products that contribute
>>>>>>to them, but notice that they NEVER do that...or at least I've never heard of
>>>>>>them doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > PETA is PETA,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice they use the lower case e in PeTA. I believe it's good to represent
>>>>>>it that way. It was probably by mistake somehow on their part since honesty is
>>>>>>not something they appear to care much about, but since they don't want domestic
>>>>>>animals to exist at all it's almost an honest gesture for "ethical" to be lower
>>>>>>case since they don't want potential future domestic animals treated ethically,
>>>>>>or to ever experience any sort of life at all. Really to be most honest about
>>>>>>their own personal misnomer that organization should probably present it as:
>>>>>>PetA. A good way to represent those people in general is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>pEda - people for the EXTINCTION of domestic animals
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > and they're morons all the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> > > > > > down to the bone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They feel that they're at war, and will do whatever they can think of to try
>>>>>>to eliminate domestic animals. They also support eliminationist terrorism. They
>>>>>>are the enemy of domestic animals since they want to eliminate them from my pov,
>>>>>>and they are also an enemy of the human race. What about wildlife? If you think
>>>>>>it's better for wildlife to overpopulate areas to the point of causing
>>>>>>starvation and disease, along with getting hit by vehicles etc, then they're not
>>>>>>an enemy to wildlife. But if you think human hunting is more humane than
>>>>>>starvation and disease, and even non-human predators, then you could view
>>>>>>eliminationists as being an enemy to wildlife as well as to all domestic animals
>>>>>>and the human race. Maybe it's no wonder they target children when that's all
>>>>>>they really have to "offer"...
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't know
>>>>
>>>> We know that's all they have to "offer" Gootsy, and we know it's literally
>>>>nothing in regards to domestic animals. Nothing is specifically what they have
>>>>to "offer" "them", Goob. We know it, and everyone should know it and keep that
>>>>aspect foremost in mind since it's a hugely significant aspect of human
>>>>influence on animals.
>>>
>>>We know that
>>
>> Everyone needs to know it, Goo.
>
>Everyone *does* know it
Not yet Goob, but eventually they might. Everyone who does know it should
certainly keep it foremost in mind though, that much is for sure Goo.
>>>>They try to pretend they have something to offer Goo, but
>>>>a normal grown person can quickly figure out that they offer nothing if they're
>>>>willing to think it through for a few seconds. But children might not be able to
>>>>think it through and that's what eliminationists are hoping, and that's why they
>>>>target children, Goo.
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:00:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:04 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:54:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23 -0700:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22 -0700:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of Whaling;
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Ubisoft
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks community
>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > last
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are eliminationists
>>>>>>poorly pretending to be AW supporters because they're aware that most people do
>>>>>>not respect eliminationists who have for far too long gotten away with masking
>>>>>>their true objective behind the gross misnomer "animal rights". It's disgusting
>>>>>>and insulting to the very idea of animal welfare when groups like PeTA are
>>>>>>referred to as animal welfare organizations. They are NOT!!! Goo who is now
>>>>>>pretending to be "George" and his boy "Dutch" both appear to be missnomer
>>>>>>addicts from my pov, but are dishonestly pretending to be in favor of AW in the
>>>>>>hopes of not losing respect for being the eliminationist morons they really are.
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > And
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you want to
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is they say whatever they think will get people to go to their
>>>>>>website, and then they can try to manipulate their thinking any ways they can
>>>>>>from there. They like to target children because if they can trick people into
>>>>>>believing that elimination is the most ethically possible approach humans can
>>>>>>take while they're still young and easier to influence, after the poor kids have
>>>>>>put their faith in that for a while they will develop cognitive dissonance which
>>>>>>will cause them to want to dismiss anything that suggests something else could
>>>>>>be ethically equivalent or superior. For example providing decent lives of
>>>>>>positive value for billions of domestic animals could be considered ethically
>>>>>>equivalent or superior to the complete elimination of domestic animals, but
>>>>>>after people have put their faith in elimination being ethically supreme their
>>>>>>congnitive dissonance will work to prevent them from ever considering that any
>>>>>>other approach could be better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Do you know anybody that supports PETA that isn't a moron? It's
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > much their core membership.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the misnomer addicts in aaev claims to have a PhD in math, yet also
>>>>>>claims he doesn't:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>>>>"lives of negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could anyone who is honestly that clueless about such a basic aspect of life
>>>>>>still be capable of obtaining a PhD? I don't see how, since we discussed that
>>>>>>aspect in fifth or sixth grade regarding slavery in the United States, and none
>>>>>>of the kids in the class had any problem with it. If any kids in the school
>>>>>>would have had a problem with it they were probably in special ed, and it's hard
>>>>>>to believe any of the special ed kids went on to obtain PhDs...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > I'm proud to say that I honestly don't think that I know anyone who
>>>>>>>> > > > > > supports PETA. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I don't know people
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> > > > > > want animals to be treated humanely and ethically, but that's a
>>>>>>>> > > > > > different matter entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely it is. Eliminationists hate it when people do anything that
>>>>>>encourages appreciating lives of positive value for domestic animals, livestock
>>>>>>in particular. They're maniacally opposed to the suggestion that the animals'
>>>>>>lives be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. And imo it's not
>>>>>>because they are unaware that millions of livestock animals already experience
>>>>>>decent lives only because they're raised for food, but they don't want people in
>>>>>>general to appreciate that aspect of human influence on animals because it works
>>>>>>against the elimination objective. If they honestly cared about providing decent
>>>>>>lives for livestock they would encourage people to buy products that contribute
>>>>>>to them, but notice that they NEVER do that...or at least I've never heard of
>>>>>>them doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > PETA is PETA,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice they use the lower case e in PeTA. I believe it's good to represent
>>>>>>it that way. It was probably by mistake somehow on their part since honesty is
>>>>>>not something they appear to care much about, but since they don't want domestic
>>>>>>animals to exist at all it's almost an honest gesture for "ethical" to be lower
>>>>>>case since they don't want potential future domestic animals treated ethically,
>>>>>>or to ever experience any sort of life at all. Really to be most honest about
>>>>>>their own personal misnomer that organization should probably present it as:
>>>>>>PetA. A good way to represent those people in general is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>pEda - people for the EXTINCTION of domestic animals
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > > > > > and they're morons all the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> > > > > > down to the bone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They feel that they're at war, and will do whatever they can think of to try
>>>>>>to eliminate domestic animals. They also support eliminationist terrorism. They
>>>>>>are the enemy of domestic animals since they want to eliminate them from my pov,
>>>>>>and they are also an enemy of the human race. What about wildlife? If you think
>>>>>>it's better for wildlife to overpopulate areas to the point of causing
>>>>>>starvation and disease, along with getting hit by vehicles etc, then they're not
>>>>>>an enemy to wildlife. But if you think human hunting is more humane than
>>>>>>starvation and disease, and even non-human predators, then you could view
>>>>>>eliminationists as being an enemy to wildlife as well as to all domestic animals
>>>>>>and the human race. Maybe it's no wonder they target children when that's all
>>>>>>they really have to "offer"...
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't know
>>>>
>>>> We know that's all they have to "offer" Gootsy, and we know it's literally
>>>>nothing in regards to domestic animals. Nothing is specifically what they have
>>>>to "offer" "them", Goob. We know it, and everyone should know it and keep that
>>>>aspect foremost in mind since it's a hugely significant aspect of human
>>>>influence on animals.
>>>
>>>We know that
>>
>> Everyone needs to know it, Goo.
>
>Everyone *does* know it
Not yet Goob, but eventually they might. Everyone who does know it should
certainly keep it foremost in mind though, that much is for sure Goo.
>>>>They try to pretend they have something to offer Goo, but
>>>>a normal grown person can quickly figure out that they offer nothing if they're
>>>>willing to think it through for a few seconds. But children might not be able to
>>>>think it through and that's what eliminationists are hoping, and that's why they
>>>>target children, Goo.
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 12:04:35 PM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:17:09 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/29/13 1:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>...[Goo], do you have any idea how many dozens of idiots like you I've
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit to livestock
animals (or any other living entity) and deserves no moral consideration
at all, and gets none from rational people." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
That Goober certainly is a fuckwit, no doubt. I also consider Goo to be the
most dishonest person I've ever encountered.
>On 3/29/13 1:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>seen trolling with their own stupidity?
Goo agrees with you eliminationists about many things, like:
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
to experience life" - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
their deaths" - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
ever wrote." - Goo
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>Say something that shows you
>have some knowledge of the subject,
Goo is one of you, agreeing with you people that:
>have some knowledge of the subject,
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit to livestock
animals (or any other living entity) and deserves no moral consideration
at all, and gets none from rational people." - Goo
"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo
logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo
logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>fuckwit.
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
That Goober certainly is a fuckwit, no doubt. I also consider Goo to be the
most dishonest person I've ever encountered.
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 12:09:18 PM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:50:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <5ebc6$5155d0be$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>In article <5ebc6$5155d0be$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
tricks. The whole idea IS to eliminate all domestic animals. They were honest
about that for years but apparently they've begun to lie about it, almost
certainly because it began to reduce the amount of $$$ they could get. They want
to eliminate all domestic animals but they've learned not to admit it, so they
make up these lies about allowing some pets.
Keep this in mind at all times: providing decent lives of domestic animals
works AGAINST what they want to accomplish. That's why people like Goo and his
boys are so maniacally opposed to people considering the lives of domestic
animals. Since eliminationists have apparently learned that more people want to
contribute to decent lives for domestic animals which remember works AGAINST
what they want, they dishonestly pretend that that's what they do want even
though their end goal is really total elimination. They don't care what sort of
lies they tell to get the money to fund the project either. These are the same
people that approve of and support terrorists who destroy medical research and
raid fur farms and set fires and set off bombs wherever they feel like it,
etc... Do you think that people who try to impose what they want on everybody
else to that maniacal extent, would hesitate to lie in order to obtain millions
more dollars each year to help them try to get what they want and also of course
to put in their pockets? That sort of slimy low life thing is WHAT they do. And
btw I consider Goo to be the most dishonest person I've ever encountered,
followed closely by his boy "Dutch".
dh
Mar 30, 2013, 12:09:56 PM3/30/13
to
domestic animals including pets, but now they've apparently started lying about
it because the truth hurts their income. Before they started lying they would
say things like:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People,
May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
They still feel the same way. That hasn't changed. What has changed is only that
now they're lying about it for $$$ reasons. One of the regular eliminationists
in aaev, who is one of Goo's "boys", admitted in a very rare second of honesty
which was no doubt a mistake on his part:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
of animal use." - Dutch
1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Mar 30, 2013, 6:40:34 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:35:06 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>
>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>
>>>
>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>
>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>
>
>How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
There's the lawn mower. Mow what you want, but eat what you mow.
>On 3/29/13 9:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/29/2013 5:40 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/29/13 5:22 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:45:51 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't about that. You know what? Every time I tell someone that
>>>>> I'm a vegetarian they avert their eyes as if they are guilty of
>>>>> something. Every time. That's what this is about: guilt.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to disappoint you...
>>>>
>>>> We are attempting to stifle a laugh
>>>
>>>
>>> By "we" I assume you mean your two brain cells?
>>
>> By "we" he means all of us who find so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and
>> even most health-based vegetarians, to be tiresome, clueless nags.
>
>
>How good of you to bat cleanup for yet another right wing moron.
>>>> because it is so glaringly obvious
>>>> that there are nutritive factors in meat that are vitally important to
>>>> proper brain functioning.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying you don't eat meat, then? Hey, here's an example that
>>> might help: Bill Clinton doesn't eat meat and George W. Bush does. Go
>>> figure, right?
>>
>> Clinton doesn't eat meat, now, because the fat pudgy fuck clogged his
>> coronary arteries chomping down greasy cheeseburgers in the White House
>> and had a heart attack. One thing we know for certain: there is no
>> ethical pretense in his vegetarianism, because Clinton can't even
>> /spell/ the word 'ethics', let alone have any.
>
>
>George, you're just as motherfucking stupid as the other guy. What, do
>you think the majority of carnivores aren't fucking themselves over from
>a health perspective?
>
>Think about how stupid what you just said is, and try again so you don't
>sound like a fucking idiot the next time. In the meantime, thanks for
>justifying my postion.
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:19 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 29 Mar 2013 10:10:19 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>
No.
> Those people want to see the elimination of all domestic
> animals
Not pets.
> and he and I both know it,
No. Not pets. They want livestock animals not to exist, but they don't
feel the same about pets.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 29 Mar 2013 10:10:19 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>> care of them properly.
>>
>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>
>> -- wds
>
> George is lying anyway.
>>>
>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>> care of them properly.
>>
>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>
>> -- wds
>
No.
> Those people want to see the elimination of all domestic
> animals
> and he and I both know it,
feel the same about pets.
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:20 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 8:48 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> On 3/28/2013 3:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> On 3/28/2013 6:45 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the
>>>>>>>>> organization
>>>>>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on
>>>>>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed
>>>>>>>> IV. Do
>>>>>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a
>>>>>>>> pirate?
>>>>>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
>>>>>>>> whales!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the
>>>>>>> principles on
>>>>>>> which PETA was founded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of
>>>>>> people want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to help you here. He - Fuckwit David Harrison, who just began
>>>> posting at <chortle> 'Lu@Lu' <snicker> - is anything *BUT* sincere.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit hates "animal rights" and "animal rights activists", because the
>>>> theory and its adherents don't want him to eat meat - they claim it
>>>> violates the "rights" of animals to be raised for human food - and
>>>> Fuckwit wants to eat meat.
>>>>
>>>> Before continuing, I will tell you that I do *not* believe in "ar". I
>>>> think it's incoherent and ethically bankrupt. I eat meat and I consume
>>>> the last 14 years knows better as well.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit shambled into alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian 14 years ago -
>>>> February or March, 1999 - and thought he had found the "killer argument"
>>>> to demolish "ar". He says that because "aras" want to put a stop to
>>>> livestock animal farming, there won't be any animals left with rights to
>>>> protect, and so they can't really be in favor of animal rights. But he
>>>> goes farther. He says that by favoring the elimination of livestock
>>>> animals, "aras" are "denying life" to animals that otherwise would have
>>>> lived. Fuckwit considers that a great moral crime - he claims to
>>>> believe that animals coming into existence and "getting to experience
>>>> life" is a good thing to the animals in and of itself, and that by
>>>> favoring the elimination of livestock animals, "aras" are committing a
>>>> great moral crime against those animals that would have got to live and
>>>> "get to experience life."
>>>>
>>>> When he first started blabbering about this, Fuckwit thought he had come
>>>> upon *THE* argument against "ar", although he didn't think it up
>>>> himself; someone fed it to him. What he didn't know is that the
>>>> argument had been demolished a century (at least) earlier. An English
>>>> philosopher, essayist and vegetarian named Henry Salt wrote an essay
>>>> called "The Logic of the Larder" in which he completely destroyed the
>>>> sophism that the meat eater "benefits" the animals he eats by giving
>>>> them the "gift of life." You can read it here:
>>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm. It's a very
>>>> elegant essay.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit has never understood the (incoherent, in my opinion) argument
>>>> against the human use of animals, which is why he never has even
>>>> attempted to attack it head on. Instead, for 14 years he has been
>>>> trying to attack it with his own counterargument that is itself
>>>> incoherent, wrong and was demolished a century ago. When he has
>>>> attempted to buttress it with his own <chortle> "original thinking", it
>>>> has been a complete hash - a dog's breakfast. After I post this, I will
>>>> repost "FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs." This will make manifestly clear that
>>>> Fuckwit is a confused, incompetent, incoherent, dishonest and above all
>>>> insincere critic of "ar".
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/28/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>> On 3/28/2013 3:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 3/28/2013 7:34 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>>> On 3/28/2013 6:45 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/13 1:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>> and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:03:15 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/21/13 11:22 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2013 4:43 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Retailers were actually selling real fur and passing it off as fake
>>>>>>>>> because the demand for fake fur was so high. And who's the
>>>>>>>>> organization
>>>>>>>>> that lead the charge against real fur? PETA of course. This is
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> one of many causes they champion better than any organization on
>>>>>>>>> Earth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And among those causes is their crusade against Assassin's Creed
>>>>>>>> IV. Do
>>>>>>>> they have a problem with it glorifying being an assassin and a
>>>>>>>> pirate?
>>>>>>>> No. But kill a whale? Now they have a problem. Save the cartoon
>>>>>>>> whales!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see your point: you are having trouble comprehending the
>>>>>>> principles on
>>>>>>> which PETA was founded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The total elimination of domestic animals is what those type of
>>>>>> people want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. Look, you seem sincere, but you're just behind the curve.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to help you here. He - Fuckwit David Harrison, who just began
>>>> posting at <chortle> 'Lu@Lu' <snicker> - is anything *BUT* sincere.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit hates "animal rights" and "animal rights activists", because the
>>>> theory and its adherents don't want him to eat meat - they claim it
>>>> violates the "rights" of animals to be raised for human food - and
>>>> Fuckwit wants to eat meat.
>>>>
>>>> Before continuing, I will tell you that I do *not* believe in "ar". I
>>>> think it's incoherent and ethically bankrupt. I eat meat and I consume
>>>> other animal-derived products, and I see no ethical problem with it; any
>>>> ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>>>> animal welfare, not with the use of animals /per se/. Fuckwit comically
>>>> ethics problems involved in the human use of animals have to do with
>>>> insists I'm some kind of "'ar' mole" masquerading as an anti-"ar"
>>>> advocate, but he knows better, and everyone who has participated here in
>>>> the last 14 years knows better as well.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit shambled into alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian 14 years ago -
>>>> February or March, 1999 - and thought he had found the "killer argument"
>>>> to demolish "ar". He says that because "aras" want to put a stop to
>>>> livestock animal farming, there won't be any animals left with rights to
>>>> protect, and so they can't really be in favor of animal rights. But he
>>>> goes farther. He says that by favoring the elimination of livestock
>>>> animals, "aras" are "denying life" to animals that otherwise would have
>>>> lived. Fuckwit considers that a great moral crime - he claims to
>>>> believe that animals coming into existence and "getting to experience
>>>> life" is a good thing to the animals in and of itself, and that by
>>>> favoring the elimination of livestock animals, "aras" are committing a
>>>> great moral crime against those animals that would have got to live and
>>>> "get to experience life."
>>>>
>>>> When he first started blabbering about this, Fuckwit thought he had come
>>>> upon *THE* argument against "ar", although he didn't think it up
>>>> himself; someone fed it to him. What he didn't know is that the
>>>> argument had been demolished a century (at least) earlier. An English
>>>> philosopher, essayist and vegetarian named Henry Salt wrote an essay
>>>> called "The Logic of the Larder" in which he completely destroyed the
>>>> sophism that the meat eater "benefits" the animals he eats by giving
>>>> them the "gift of life." You can read it here:
>>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm. It's a very
>>>> elegant essay.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit has never understood the (incoherent, in my opinion) argument
>>>> against the human use of animals, which is why he never has even
>>>> attempted to attack it head on. Instead, for 14 years he has been
>>>> trying to attack it with his own counterargument that is itself
>>>> incoherent, wrong and was demolished a century ago. When he has
>>>> attempted to buttress it with his own <chortle> "original thinking", it
>>>> has been a complete hash - a dog's breakfast. After I post this, I will
>>>> repost "FAQ: Fuckwit's Beliefs." This will make manifestly clear that
>>>> Fuckwit is a confused, incompetent, incoherent, dishonest and above all
>>>> insincere critic of "ar".
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>>
>>
>> Both true.
>
> You agree with
The statements are both true.
>
> You agree with
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:20 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 8:49 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>> benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
>>>> fact.
>>>
>>> Everyone needs to know it
>>
>> Everyone *does* know it, *Goo*, including you.
>
> Not yet
Yes, *Goo*. Everyone *does* know that existence - "getting to
experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/28/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/28/2013 3:00 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/28/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2013 11:59 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>>> On 3/27/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/2013 12:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/25/2013 10:54 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:05:23
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>>>>>> eliminationists
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <2281k8tcrn2gmpofd...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:54:22
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed for Its Depiction of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whaling;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubisoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Responds with a Heaping Dose of Sarcasm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/asvhhp7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that was making the rounds of the gaming geeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week and has been almost universally mocked. It's as if PETA
>>>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like complete morons is going to win them hearts and
>>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In aaev I believe there are a couple of posters who are
>>>>>>> eliminationists
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know your flabby doughy cracker ass from your pimply face,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it's just for the free publicity, why would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicize a message that says that you're morons?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know that's all they
>>>>
>>>> We know that existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
>>>>> We know that's all they
>>>>
>>>> benefit, *Goo*. We know that beyond all rational dispute. It's just a
>>>> fact.
>>>
>>> Everyone needs to know it
>>
>> Everyone *does* know it, *Goo*, including you.
>
> Not yet
Yes, *Goo*. Everyone *does* know that existence - "getting to
experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:21 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 9:04 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 5:17 PM, trotsky wrote:
> George agrees with you eliminationists
No such thing as "eliminationists."
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
> On 3/29/2013 5:17 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 3/29/13 1:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2013 11:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
No such thing as "eliminationists."
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed."
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming."
>
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life"
All three are true statements.
> to experience life"
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:21 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 9:09 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
> George is lying to you and
No. I'm not lying, *Goo* - you are.
> apparently so far you're falling for their dishonest
> tricks. The whole idea IS to eliminate all domestic animals.
No, that's only a side effect.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 3/29/2013 5:50 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <5ebc6$5155d0be$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> In article <5ebc6$5155d0be$414e828e$29...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
No. I'm not lying, *Goo* - you are.
> apparently so far you're falling for their dishonest
> tricks. The whole idea IS to eliminate all domestic animals.
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 3:04:22 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 9:09 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied: > On 3/29/2013 3:27 PM,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:22:30 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <kj47cb$gn9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>>>> property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>>>> care of them properly.
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>>>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>>>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>>>
>>>> -- wds
>>>
>>> How would you word this? If you can't own a cat, how do you make it's
>>> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>>
>> He's either leading up to marriage or adoption.
>
> George is lying to you,
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:22:30 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <kj47cb$gn9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>>>> property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>>>> care of them properly.
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>>>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>>>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>>>
>>>> -- wds
>>>
>>> How would you word this? If you can't own a cat, how do you make it's
>>> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>>
>> He's either leading up to marriage or adoption.
>
No.
> They want the elimination of domestic animals including pets,
anim8rFSK
Mar 30, 2013, 5:00:57 PM3/30/13
to
Dimensional Traveler
Mar 30, 2013, 8:36:50 PM3/30/13
to
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>> care of them properly.
>>
>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>
>> -- wds
>
>>>
>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>> care of them properly.
>>
>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>
>> -- wds
>
> How would you word this? If you can't own a cat, how do you make it's
> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>
Well, you don't tag it because that would imply ownership. You also
> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>
wouldn't give it shots because that would be cruel (don't get them
started on spaying/neutering!). Pretty much anything to do with a
veterinarian would be right out as it would have to involve discomfort,
pain or indignity for the noble pure animal.
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Dimensional Traveler
Mar 30, 2013, 8:37:51 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/29/2013 5:50 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
in place just in case an animal showed up.
anim8rFSK
Mar 30, 2013, 10:54:23 PM3/30/13
to
In article <5157855b$0$52801$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Is there some 'one size fits all' pet food? What if it's a dolphin?
BTR1701
Mar 30, 2013, 11:18:02 PM3/30/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-A632F...@news.easynews.com>,
Then you're legally fucked because you'd be both obligated to care for
it and prohibited from interfering with it in any way.
it and prohibited from interfering with it in any way.
George Plimpton
Mar 30, 2013, 11:33:58 PM3/30/13
to
1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Mar 31, 2013, 3:06:51 AM3/31/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:54:23 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
What if dolphin is the 'one size fits all' pet food?
wrote:
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 8:05:02 AM3/31/13
to
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 10:05:19 AM3/31/13
to
In article <9f961$5157ae3f$414e828e$31...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Yes, they do. They've stated it. It's why they kill most of the
animals brought to their shelters.
animals brought to their shelters.
George Plimpton
Mar 31, 2013, 12:38:54 PM3/31/13
to
breeding of companion animals. They don't use the word "pet",
preferring "companion animal." They do not advocate a ban on keeping
companion animals; they want a redefinition of the relationship.
I don't agree with PETA on any of this, but it doesn't help to
misrepresent their position, as you are attempting to do.
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 12:55:27 PM3/31/13
to
On 3/30/13 9:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with "veganism".
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you're "talking about".
>
> I know. You never know what's up. Far-left extremists never do.
Let me be more clear: you pulled the term "veganism" out of your ass,
put it in quotes for some reason, and gave it no context or definition.
You're just telling me you lack the basic intelligence to discuss the
topic properly. Sorry.
> On 3/30/2013 6:04 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
>>>>
>>>> Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of
>>>> cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and [blah blah bullshit]
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
>>>>
>>>> Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with "veganism".
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you're "talking about".
>
> I know. You never know what's up. Far-left extremists never do.
Let me be more clear: you pulled the term "veganism" out of your ass,
put it in quotes for some reason, and gave it no context or definition.
You're just telling me you lack the basic intelligence to discuss the
topic properly. Sorry.
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 12:57:28 PM3/31/13
to
validity, and then goose stepping shitheads come along to "agree".
Show me an act of terror that PETA has any connection to. I dare you.
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 12:59:32 PM3/31/13
to
On 3/30/13 10:49 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:40:56 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/13 5:44 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>>> applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>>> come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
>>
>>
>> God damn, my posts are even funnier the second time around.
>
> Trying to dishonestly deny PeTA's support of terrorists isn't funny.
You're a moron. Show me a connection to terrorists. A quote isn't a
>
>> On 3/29/13 5:44 AM, 1,929 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:22:41 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/13 1:29 PM, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
>>>>> crimes' when used for the animal cause."
>>>>> (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quote from 1989? Jeez, weren't there any quotes from Stalin that were
>>>> applicable? You lose, thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> It's enough to ensure that any PeTA/ALF terrorist that attempts to
>>> come between me and my pet will be carried away by the coroner.
>>
>>
>> God damn, my posts are even funnier the second time around.
>
> Trying to dishonestly deny PeTA's support of terrorists isn't funny.
connection. Talk is cheap. Show me a news article, investigation,
money trail, any fucking thing. I'll assume you lack the intellectual
firepower to do so until you can produce something. Or, to quote
"Plimpton", you're being a fuckwit.
It's
> pathetic and contemptible as many dishonest AND funny things are,
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 1:00:15 PM3/31/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 31, 2013, 1:34:13 PM3/31/13
to
In article <8a387$51586619$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Wow. You're too stupid to live. I wish cancer on you and anyone you
love, soon and painfully.
PETA advocates the cessation of
> breeding of companion animals.
And they murder them by the tens of thousands.
They don't use the word "pet",
> preferring "companion animal."
So the fuck what, you lying sack of pick shit?
They do not advocate a ban on keeping
> companion animals; they want a redefinition of the relationship.
They want them all dead.
love, soon and painfully.
PETA advocates the cessation of
> breeding of companion animals.
They don't use the word "pet",
> preferring "companion animal."
They do not advocate a ban on keeping
> companion animals; they want a redefinition of the relationship.
>
> I don't agree with PETA on any of this, but it doesn't help to
> misrepresent their position, as you are attempting to do.
Eat shit and die, and soon.
> I don't agree with PETA on any of this, but it doesn't help to
> misrepresent their position, as you are attempting to do.
Derek
Mar 31, 2013, 3:01:54 PM3/31/13
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:34:13 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2013 7:05 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> > George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> >> On 3/30/2013 2:00 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> >>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2013 7:05 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> > George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> >> On 3/30/2013 2:00 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
[]
>> >>>> No. Not pets. They want livestock animals not to exist, but they don't
>> >>>> feel the same about pets.
>> >>>
>> >>> PETA does.
>> >>
>> >> No, they don't.
>> >
>> > Yes, they do. They've stated it.
>>
>> No, they haven't. You are lying.
>
>Wow. You're too stupid to live. I wish cancer on you and anyone you
>love, soon and painfully.
I would punch you to the ground for saying that if I was there.
>> >>>> feel the same about pets.
>> >>>
>> >>> PETA does.
>> >>
>> >> No, they don't.
>> >
>> > Yes, they do. They've stated it.
>>
>> No, they haven't. You are lying.
>
>Wow. You're too stupid to live. I wish cancer on you and anyone you
>love, soon and painfully.
BTR1701
Mar 31, 2013, 3:18:33 PM3/31/13
to
Mason Barge
Mar 31, 2013, 3:43:42 PM3/31/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:36:17 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>On 3/29/2013 10:22 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kj47cb$gn9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Whereas, if a cat eats its children, the human goes to jail.
If a cat eats its owner, excuse me, food sponsor, they make a cool
documentary.
wrote:
>On 3/29/2013 10:22 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <kj47cb$gn9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>>> care of them properly.
>>>
>>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>>
>>> In article <anim8rfsk-E740F...@news.easynews.com>,
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "aras" do not advocate the extinction of companion animals. They
>>>>> want to redefine the relationship between humans and companion
>>>>> animals, specifically, to say that such animals cannot be
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> Which is idiotic. If they aren't property, we can't make you take
>>>> care of them properly.
>>>
>>> To the extent that the law can _make_ you do anything at all --
>>> i.e., via the force-backed threat of punishment -- it can make you
>>> do anything that the people who make the law want it to.
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>> How would you word this? If you can't own a cat, how do you make it's
>> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>
>I think already answered this. You can't own your own child, either,
>but the state can punish you for failing to provide adequate care to
>your child. A child can be removed from your care if you don't
>adequately care for the child.
Plus they'll send you to jail if you eat your children.
>> human give it it's shots and tags and such?
>
>I think already answered this. You can't own your own child, either,
>but the state can punish you for failing to provide adequate care to
>your child. A child can be removed from your care if you don't
>adequately care for the child.
Whereas, if a cat eats its children, the human goes to jail.
If a cat eats its owner, excuse me, food sponsor, they make a cool
documentary.
Mason Barge
Mar 31, 2013, 3:45:10 PM3/31/13
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:38:54 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
Do they discriminate against gay companion animals?
Derek
Mar 31, 2013, 5:17:53 PM3/31/13
to
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 6:10:40 PM3/31/13
to
established that you're utterly lacking in balls, right?
trotsky
Mar 31, 2013, 6:29:50 PM3/31/13
to
BTR1701
Mar 31, 2013, 7:26:03 PM3/31/13
to
BTR1701
Mar 31, 2013, 7:26:51 PM3/31/13
to
In article <AZCdneLUmc9CJcXM...@mchsi.com>,
And +1 for conspiracy to commit perjury from Shitsky the Hutt!
Dutch
Mar 31, 2013, 8:59:47 PM3/31/13
to
George Plimpton
Mar 31, 2013, 11:30:07 PM3/31/13
to
On 3/31/2013 9:55 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 3/30/13 9:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/30/2013 6:04 AM, trotsky wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of
>>>>> cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and [blah blah bullshit]
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with "veganism".
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're "talking about".
>>
>> I know. You never know what's up. Far-left extremists never do.
>
>
> Let me be more clear: you pulled the term "veganism" out of your ass,
No, I didn't. It's a term coined by "vegans" - so-called "ethical"
> On 3/30/13 9:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/30/2013 6:04 AM, trotsky wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[38] lower levels of
>>>>> cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and [blah blah bullshit]
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with "veganism".
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're "talking about".
>>
>> I know. You never know what's up. Far-left extremists never do.
>
>
> Let me be more clear: you pulled the term "veganism" out of your ass,
vegetarians - themselves.
Let me be clear: it's a marker for left-wing extremism. As I said:
not all leftists are "vegans", but all "vegans" are leftists.
George Plimpton
Mar 31, 2013, 11:33:07 PM3/31/13
to
better looking, stronger, and get better looking women than you. I'm
your superior in every way...and you fucking well know it, too.
>> PETA advocates the cessation of
>> breeding of companion animals.
>
> And they murder them by the tens of thousands.
>> They don't use the word "pet",
>> preferring "companion animal."
>
> So the fuck what, you lying sack of pick shit?
>> They do not advocate a ban on keeping
>> companion animals; they want a redefinition of the relationship.
>
> They want them all dead.
>> I don't agree with PETA on any of this, but it doesn't help to
>> misrepresent their position, as you are attempting to do.
>
> Eat shit and die, and soon.
George Plimpton
Mar 31, 2013, 11:33:39 PM3/31/13
to
George Plimpton
Mar 31, 2013, 11:34:07 PM3/31/13
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages