Paul Theroux & Henry Thoreau on Moose Hunting
pearl
The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
By Paul Theroux
September 14, 2008
All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Henry David Thoreau
wrote in "The Maine Woods," killing these big, gentle, myopic creatures is more
"like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor's
horses."
Thoreau's descriptions of the moose he saw in Maine are inspired and fanciful.
"They made me think of great frightened rabbits," he wrote, and he alluded to the
moose's "branching and leafy horns -- a sort of fucus or lichen in bone."
In all his descriptions there is affection and awe. The killing of a moose is, in
Thoreau's view, always a tragedy. He witnessed one being shot, and "nature looked
sternly upon me on account of the murder of the moose." In another passage,
Thoreau grudgingly acknowledges that moose are hunted by Indians out of necessity
-- for their meat, for their hides, as part of Indian custom and tradition. This
was in 1853.
American politicians seldom take notice of American writers, especially the
boldest ones, such as Thoreau, whose every word is at odds with their groveling
and grandstanding and their sanctimonious cant. Think of the average politician
today and then reflect on how Thoreau had no time for organized religion, how he
mocked clergymen and jeered at missionaries, warmongers and Bible-thumpers.
He was a defender of John Brown and the rebellious spirit in American life, a
proponent of human rights.
He hated the thought of the wilderness being opened to development; he wrote
scathingly of lumberjacks and logging operations. He would have cheered the
demonstrators outside the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minn. He
would have mocked the people inside. He would have denounced the prison at
Guantanamo. He wrote against injustice; he despised politicians and hunters.
And yet hunting seems to define a certain species of American politician. It's
nothing new. When Teddy Roosevelt left office, he traveled to Africa and -- in
the role of evil twin to the biblical Noah -- hunted and killed two (and
sometimes 18) of every species of animal that could be found from the Kenyan
coast to the swamps of the southern Sudan: total bag, 512 creatures. In his
account of the safari, "African Game Trails" (1910), he wrote, "The land teems
with beasts of the chase, infinite in number ... ."
"Infinite" is credulous hyperbole -- many of those animals are now extinct or
severely endangered. Take the bongo, a large African antelope -- nearly as large
as a moose -- now almost gone because of hunters and poachers. In Uganda, where
it roamed in sizable numbers when I lived there, it has been wiped out. Maurice
Stans, the Nixon administration Commerce secretary and Watergate defendant,
helped to eradicate this gentle animal when, in the 1960s, he sicced his dogs on
them -- the conventional way to corner a bongo -- then presumably gestured to his
gun bearer ("Here is your bunduki, bwana") and shot two of them as trophies. It
was not an incidental act: Maurice Stans defined himself politically as a big-
game hunter.
You would be forgiven for believing that the Menendez brothers gave Dick Cheney
lessons in handling a shotgun -- still, he is by all accounts a keen hunter. But
who knew that Justice Antonin Scalia also hunts ducks? Perhaps it is not odd that
someone who advocates physical harm to humans would not shrink from blowing
a small bird apart. Earlier this year, asked about torture, Scalia said: "It seems
to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you
couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the
face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that." Cheney agrees, so it is no
surprise that these men are hunting buddies, huddled in the same duck blind,
torturing animals to death with buckshot.
A lot can be told from the animals that people choose to kill. The French shoot
the most melodious larks and turn them into pate. Many English people are still
indignant that restrictions have been placed on the hunting of foxes, bongo
style, chasing them with dogs, which tear them to pieces.
There is hunting for sport, and hunting for the pot, and of course hunting for
votes. The name of Teddy Roosevelt, the hunter, the moose skinner, was invoked
just the other day at the Republican National Convention, in Fred Thompson's
praise of Gov. Sarah Palin. This mother of five is now celebrated as a moose
hunter and, more than that, moose skinner, moose eater and perhaps hanger of
moose-head trophies. As Palin was delivering her acceptance speech, an immense
photograph of Alaska was projected behind her on the giant screen where, in the
foreground, a moose could be seen, placidly staring at its reflection in water.
And on the following day, in the video that encapsulated her life, Palin was
described as having risen early on cold mornings with her father to go moose
hunting.
Moose hunting is now seen as a possible Republican vote-getter, especially as
the moose hunter in question is a slightly built and bespectacled mother of five.
This casting against type presumably has the same effect on the public
imagination as the revelation that defensive tackle Roosevelt Grier found
relaxation in needlepoint.
I have no strong views on hunting, only the usual disgust when I see a creature
senselessly slaughtered at no risk to the hunter. Thoreau called the moose "a
fabulous animal," and in a book Palin probably has not read, he remarked on how
moose sometimes weigh 1,000 pounds and how they "can step over a five-foot gate
in their ordinary walk."
While people cheered, Palin was lauded for knowing how to "field-dress" a moose.
Thoreau, who watched such an operation, wrote, "Joe [his Penobscot guide] now
proceeded to skin the moose with a pocket knife, while I looked on, and a
tragical business it was; to see that still warm and palpitating body pierced
with a knife, to see the warm milk stream from the rent udder, and the ghastly
naked red carcass appearing from within its seemly robe." I read that and somehow
am not provoked to cheer.
In one of the great passages, in the chapter "Chesuncook," Thoreau writes how the
moose and the pine tree are linked in his mind. "A pine cut down, a dead pine, is
no more a pine than a dead human carcass is a man." He continues, "Every creature
is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands
it aright will rather preserve life than destroy it."
Paul Theroux is the author of many books, including "The Great Railway Bazaar,"
"The Mosquito Coast" and, most recently, "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-theroux14-2008sep14,0,4163474.story
dh
>Thoreau on the moose
>
>The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>
>By Paul Theroux
>September 14, 2008
>
>All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's interesting in a most pathetic way that the people who are critical
of moose hunting are also often the same people who would re-introduce
wolves which can have catastrophic influence on moose populations. They
do that of course by chasing terrified young and baby moose to the point
of exhaustion, then strangling them to death with their jaws as their
fellows begin to rip them apart and devour them while the young victims
are still alive and conscious.
pearl
It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
'When hunting deer, all [wolf] pack members frequently participate in
locating and chasing down the prey. If the pack starts to fall behind in
a chase, it will usually give up. Wolves cannot afford to expend
precious energy in fruitless skirmishes. If the chosen prey is injured,
weakened, old or very young and separated from the protection of the
adults, however, the wolves often do catch up with it and attack. But
even prey vulnerability does not guarantee dinner. The odds are rarely
in favor of the wolf. For example, fewer than one out of ten attempts to
kill a moose actually ends in success for the wolf. In fact, larger prey
animals such as moose, caribou and elk do not always run when they
encounter a pack of wolves. Wolves are frequently killed or severely
injured by these animals; even a deer can break a wolf's back with its
sharp hooves. Biologists who have done studies on dead wolves found
in the wild report that almost 100 percent show some sort of old injury
such as a fractured skull, leg or shoulder.
...'
http://www.kidsplanet.org/tt/wolf/reading/5hunting.PDF
'Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary
..
Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the
world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.(2,3)
Less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts, yet hunting is permitted
in many wildlife refuges, national forests, state parks, and on other public
lands.(4) Forty percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals
on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as
many animals illegally.(5,6)
Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured
but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance
estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are
wounded but not killed.(7) A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed
deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with "traditional
archery equipment," 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(8)
Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot
again; 10 percent manage to escape, but "starvation is a likely fate" for
them, according to one veterinarian.(9) A South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish, and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million
wounded ducks go "unretrieved" every year.(10) A British study of
deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who'd been killed by
hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some
wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(11)
Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families.
For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family
units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted
animals suffer - caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and
other commotion that hunters create - also severely compromises their
normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy
that they need in order to survive the winter.
Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies
implement programs - often called "wildlife management" or
"conservation" programs - that are designed to boost the number of
"game" species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of
animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from
the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct
$100,000 a year toward "reduced predator impact," which involved
trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving
hunters more birds to kill.(12) The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up
with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating
large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to "produce
habitat needed by ruffed grouse."(13)
In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the
number of moose for hunters by "controlling" the wolf and bear
populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of
miles away from their homes; two were shot by hunters within two
weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their
homes.(14) Wolves have been slaughtered in order to "let the moose
population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters."(15)
In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population
backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly and photos of
suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.(16)
Nature Takes Care of Its Own
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their own survival - if they
are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing
only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal
whom they would like to hang over the fireplace - including large, healthy
animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching
is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and
in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep's horn size to fall by 25
percent in the last 40 years; Nature magazine reports that "the effect on
the populations' genetics is probably deeper."(17)
Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural
processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic,
but they are nature's ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive
and maintain the strength level of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting
an animal because he or she might starve or become sick is arbitrary and
destructive.
"Sport" hunting not only jeopardizes nature's balance, it also exacerbates
other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk
between states for the purpose of hunting is believed to have contributed
to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). As a result, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies
millions of dollars to "manage" deer and elk populations.(18) The fatal
neurological illness that affects these animals has been likened to mad cow
disease, and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases
that affect humans or farmed animals, the slaughter of deer and elk
continues.(19,20)
Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic "game"
animals who, if they're able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native
wildlife and established ecosystems. After a group of nonnative wild
boars escaped from a private ranch and moved into the forests of
Cambria County, Pa., the state of Pennsylvania drafted a bill prohibiting
the importation of all exotic species of animals.(21)
Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are
often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up
as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill
native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native
to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals
who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses.
They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with
a "trophy."
Canned hunts are becoming big business - there are an estimated 1,000
game preserves in the U.S.(22) Ted Turner, who owns more land than
any other landowner in the country, operates 20 ranches, where hunters
pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and
turkeys.(23)
Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and
are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to,
which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of
these ranches operate on a "no kill, no pay" policy, so it is in owners'
best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this
by offering guides who are familiar with animals' locations and habits,
permitting the use of dogs, and supplying "feeding stations" that lure
unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.
Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting, and there are no federal
laws regulating the practice at this time.(24) Congress is considering an
amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would
prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals
"for entertainment or the collection of a trophy."(25)
'Accidental' Victims
Hunting "accidents" destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows,
dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney
famously shot a friend while hunting quail on a canned-hunting preserve.(26)
According to the International Hunter Education Association, there are
dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the
United States every year - and that number only includes incidents
involving humans.(27) It is an ongoing problem, and one warden explained
that "hunters seem unfamiliar with their firearms and do not have enough
respect for the damage they can do."(28)
...'
http://www.helpinganimals.com/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=53
pearl
> pearl wrote:
..
> > It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
>
>
> As repugnant at cockfighting is, you already know why he does it.
> First, because he's completely depraved.
>
> Your weird, fucked-up, new-age fascism beliefs aren't any better.
'The behaviour of any Fascist (declared or hidden) has obsessive
preoccupation with humiliation or victim hood - the "lets get them"
syndrome. There must be some one to attack, however underhandedly.
With this comes the 'gang mentality', the committed supremicist militants,
who seek the approval of and interaction with the traditional elites or
money barons. Fascism erodes democratic liberties offering only violence
(physical or virtual) and operates without legal constraints. The 'higher'
intention of Fascism includes the removal of all objectors thus making the
'gang' into the biggest power block. Fascism is often hidden as it can get
away with more bad deeds this way. Truth and exposure are the greatest
cures for Fascism.
George Orwell, British writer and author of "1984" and "Animal Farm",
has said that -
"Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost
any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'.
That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."
..'
http://www.druidschool.com/site/1030100/page/887235
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish,
he always had the same thought: In their behavior toward creatures,
all men were Nazis." -- Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904-1991)
'A distressing story of animal abuse hit the news on Tuesday, September 16,
and continues to make news, including in a superb Huffington Post piece
published today. A PETA undercover investigator has released video taken
at an Iowa hog farm that documents both illegal and legal abuse.
The CNN International link to the story is:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/09/16/abused.pigs.ap/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
OR http://tinyurl.com/42k8hu
At the top of the page we see a photo of a sow whose face is bright blue, and
we learn that she has been sprayed in the face, and up her snout, with toxic
paint for more than thirty seconds. In the next photo we see multiple lacerations
across a sow's back, made with a rod. The story also links to the PETA video,
and we read, "The video, shot by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
shows farm workers hitting sows with metal rods, slamming piglets on a
concrete floor and bragging about jamming rods into sows' hindquarters."
There is a discussion in the article as to whether those abuses are aberrations
or the norm on such farms. What I personally found the most upsetting was
watching the abuse that is legal, and that therefore will not change as a result
of the violators being filmed and hopefully prosecuted for other acts of
animal cruelty. For example, as the video opens the camera sweeps over the
"farm." No voiceover or subtitle comment is made on the scene, but I hope
viewers who imagine that the pigs on their dinner table had spent their lives
rolling around outside in mud baths, will look, instead, at the rows and rows
of individual metal crates. Each one is too small for the sow inside to even
lie down with her legs outstretched, let alone turn around. Sows are sentient
and intelligent. I am deeply saddened to know the majority of breeding
sows in the US live like this. That the immobilizing crates make them
"sitting ducks" for whatever abuse the frustrated workers choose to heap
upon them just adds another layer to the tragedy.
In the story we read that tail docking and castration without anesthetic are
standard industry practice and therefore legal. While that is no fun to read,
it is not until you see and hear it that the picture becomes unbearably dark.
This isn't a quick chop or snip. The piglet is held upside down shrieking
and shrieking as a man rummages around snipping at and pulling out the
baby's testicles. It is not quick. It is not something you would ever allow
to happen your dog. But it is standard industry practice for pigs.
In another scene, piglets considered to be runts are killed by being slammed
against the concrete floor. The camera focuses on a pig in the pile writhing
and convulsing, still conscious, because this is not, of course, an efficient
manner of killing. If it is, however, standard industry practice, then it is legal.
I believe it is, though I am still trying to confirm that. But one would expect
so, knowing that killing live male chicks of laying hens by stuffing them into
garbage bins to suffocate, or into grinders, is standard practice and legal.
Temple Grandin is an animal handling welfare specialist who is well known
for designing slaughterhouses that give animals significantly less horrifying
deaths than those that had been standard before her influence. I strongly
support much of her work because if my life were to be cut short, I would
most certainly care about the manner of my death -- so I can only support
those who give that care to the animals I choose to represent. Yet in the
Associated Press story posted on CNN, Temple Grandin's comment
seems to gloss over the shocking industry standards. She says:
"This is atrocious animal abuse. I've been on many good farms, and the
pigs are handled gently. This was blatant, deliberate animal cruelty. These
people are sick. They need to be prosecuted. There are certain people that
enjoy hurting animals and they should not be working with them -- period."
While few of us would argue with her assessment of the particular people
involved, she separates those people from the system itself, which many
normal people would judge as equally sick. How can she refer to pigs
being "handled gently" if they have their tails cut off, and they are castrated,
all without anesthetic, and if they are confined in crates so small that they
develop painful injuries due to their inability to move?
This brings us to Kathy Freston's blog today on The Huffington Post,
headed "Help Stop Cruelty to Animals." Freston writes that the video
brought her to tears, but she urges everybody to watch it. So do I. I
choose to use a line often quoted by the wonderful Gretchen Wyler:
"We must not refuse to see with our eyes what they must endure with
their bodies."
Then Freston ends her blog with:
"We can all bring about positive changes by not buying products that harm
animals, by eating a more plant based diet. We can reject cruelty simply by
eating veggie dogs rather than hot dogs, or substituting tempeh, or Fakin'
Bacon, for bacon. If you live in California, you can vote in favor of
Proposition 2, the statewide initiative that would make it illegal for farmers
to cram pregnant pigs in small gestation crates and calves into veal crates,
and to force six or seven hens to live in tiny cages where they can't do
anything that is natural to them.
"No matter where you are in the world, you can do something to make a
difference for animals."
I was pleased to see her use this story as a jump off point to urge a switch
to plant based diets, and to support California's Proposition 2.
Those of you familiar with my work, particularly if you have read Thanking
the Monkey, know that I don't "yell at" people to go vegan; I prefer a
measured presentation of the facts upon which people can base their own
decisions. Yet I hope I make strong arguments for vegan choices, and I
don't hide my belief that humans are evolving towards plant based diets.
I am moved again to quote Gretchen Wyler here, and write that "I look
forward to the day when animals will have the right to run if they have legs,
swim if they have fins, and fly if they have wings."
As I wrote in Thanking the Monkey, I have little doubt that reforms are
part of the path to abolition -- history has made that clear. Laws against
beating slaves came before, not instead of, laws banning slavery. Granting
women the right to vote aided rather than hampered the ongoing battle for
equal pay for equal work; it acknowledged the worth of women. That is
why agribusiness is pouring millions and millions of dollars into a campaign
to fight a law that will only give sows and calves enough room to move
around, and hens enough room to stretch their wings. They see the slippery
slope. We love a slippery slope!
Our movement's success on California's Proposition 2 -- success in a state
which has one of the world's largest economies -- should be of paramount
concern to those who hope to see the end of the legal human abuse of other
animals. Yet even if one does not wish for the abolition of keeping other
species for our purposes, the Prop 2 reforms stand alone in their merit. What
decent person wants to see animals housed for life in crates so small they
cause physical injury from immobility? The standard industry practice is
madness and we have the power to change it. Please go to
http://www.yesonprop2.com/ to learn more about the campaign and what
we can all do to help.
You'll find Freston's full piece on line at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/help-stop-cruelty-to-anim_b_127967.html
OR http://tinyurl.com/4f3ozh
Please leave a supportive comment. Lots of good feedback will make room
for more of that kind of coverage on the Huffington Post.
Here is a link to hundreds of media outlets that covered the Iowa hog farm story:
http://tinyurl.com/4dtyoa
If your local paper or TV station is among them, please thank your media for
the coverage. If you have any trouble finding the correct email address for a
letter to the editor or to a station, please ask me for help.
Check out the endorsement of Proposition 2 from the conservative leaning
editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune. Paul Shapiro of HSUS calls
it a "must read." It does a great job of looking at the opposition's arguments
against the initiative and quashing them:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080915/news_mz1ed15top.html
If you live in California, please also take a look at the information on the
Prop 2 website linked above, and send off a letter to your editor in support
of the Proposition. You might use the images of the sows in crates from the
undercover video to help make your point -- the video makes your letter
doubly topical. You might note that while the other abuses in the video are
given more attention, the painful crating goes on day in and day out.
Small papers publish a huge proportion of letters they receive, some close to
a hundred percent. The few minutes you take to jot off a note could influence
hundreds or thousands -- or hundreds of thousands -- of voters and thereby
help to get millions of animals out of crates and tiny cages.
Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Remember that shorter letters are more likely to
be published. And please be sure not to use any comments or phrases from
me or from any other alerts in your letters. These alerts tend to be widely
circulated, and editors are looking for original responses from their readers.
Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues
in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets.
You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at
http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch
alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this
parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you,
which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)'
pearl
http://web.archive.org/web/20040705005744/http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
wrote in message news:vdmdnde2sa-LRUrV...@earthlink.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:24KdnfDGj_EBJUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> > ..
> >>> It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
> >> [snip copypasta vomit]
> >>
> >> As repugnant at cockfighting is, you already know why he does it.
> >> First, because he's completely depraved.
> >>
> >> Your weird, fucked-up, new-age fascism beliefs aren't any better.
> >
>
> YOUR behavior, that is.
"For anyone wondering, I'm neither --- nor ----, nor anyone Mr. Ball
is very acquainted with. I do however hate a net-bully. I believe
that people ought to have the right to freely voice their thoughts and
opinions without being subject to personal attack. Unfortunately
there exist a few individuals who have a habit of turning newsgroups
supposedly devoted to "A" topic into vicious interrogations on the
personal matters of other posters, often cleverly manipulating the
other posters into taking sides and believing these "personal" issues
are of more importance than they merit. It's sick. It's sad, and
it's quite childish IMHO -- like witnessing "Lord of the Flies" in
text medium.
After reviewing Mr. Ball's posting history, I feel he is a particularly
loathsome standout in that category. He appears to have a long and
extensive history of turning newsgroup discussion into personal
attacks on various posters. My impression is that he is a deeply
troubled individual who is probably in need of psychiatric assistance.
I have just given Mr. Ball a dose of his own medicine -- with the
promise that there's always more where that came from. ...That, and
the admonishment that it's not always wise to be throwing stones in
glass houses.
....'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
dh
>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> Thoreau on the moose
>>>
>>> The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>>> Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>>>
>>> By Paul Theroux
>>> September 14, 2008
>>>
>>> All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>>> enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>>> marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>
>> It's interesting in a most pathetic way that
>
>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals, Goo.
Not to some Goobernicus, but to others yes. Of course being
unable to comprehend that basic element of life you are of
course unable to make a distinction between when it is and
when it's not. It must be horrible to be that stupid Goo. If you
truly are as stupid as your supposed beliefs insist you are then
it's easy to see why you're such a pissy shit, because it means
you're confounded to the point of frantic frustration by the
simplest of ideas. Then there's something you believe is
preventing beings from benefitting from lives of positive value
as they very clearly appear to do. What is it you think you think
is preventing them Goo, do you have any clue? Do you have
any clue what you think causes such incredible mass prevention
for every single creature ever born in the universe Goober...don't
you have any clue at all?
(Note: Goob does have a belief in what. He believes that
our own pre-existent "selves" are somehow preventing
us from benefitting from our own existence. He has no clue
at all *how* he thinks they are doing it, but he's certainly
convinced that "they" are. What a true Goober!)
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:iqcdd4huft5sq0k9b...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >Thoreau on the moose
>> >
>> >The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>> >Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>> >
>> >By Paul Theroux
>> >September 14, 2008
>> >
>> >All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>> >enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>> >marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>
>> It's interesting in a most pathetic way that the people who are critical
>> of moose hunting are also often the same people who would re-introduce
>> wolves which can have catastrophic influence on moose populations. They
>> do that of course by chasing terrified young and baby moose to the point
>> of exhaustion, then strangling them to death with their jaws as their
>> fellows begin to rip them apart and devour them while the young victims
>> are still alive and conscious.
>
>It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
That's a blatant lie. Dare you tell the truth? LOL...of course you
dare not...lol... Wow, you're funny in a pathetic way too. Wait, that's
two funny ways for you:
1. You who oppose human hunting want to impose something a lot
worse on the prey animals, and it would seem their hunters as well.
2. You can't dare to tell the truth regarding what you just lied about.
Wow again...those certainly are some horribly pathetic ways to
be amusing.
>'When hunting deer, all [wolf] pack members frequently participate in
>locating and chasing down the prey. If the pack starts to fall behind in
>a chase, it will usually give up. Wolves cannot afford to expend
>precious energy in fruitless skirmishes. If the chosen prey is injured,
>weakened, old or very young and separated from the protection of the
>adults, however, the wolves often do catch up with it and attack. But
>even prey vulnerability does not guarantee dinner. The odds are rarely
>in favor of the wolf. For example, fewer than one out of ten attempts to
>kill a moose actually ends in success for the wolf.
What horrible situations for you to want to impose on both prey and
hunter. Much worse than what's involved with human hunting or with
cock fighting. You really do appear to be a sick individual, no doubt.
. . .
>(4) Forty percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals
>on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as
>many animals illegally.(5,6)
Nonhuman predators do the same things human poachers do
by not observing any hunting regulations or seasons, hunting both
day and night at all times of the year. Then there's the extra terror
imposed by the fact that they LIVE IN THE SAME AREA with their
prey who are terrified of them. It would be like having your worst
enemies living in your home with you, trying to kill you, filling your
life with terror...
>Pain and Suffering
>
>Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured
>but not killed by hunters. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance
>estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are
>wounded but not killed.
Of course coming from an advocate of the misnomer we
know it has to be a gross exaggeration, but any of that is
too much and I'm convinced it's the worst part about it.
It's nowhere near as bad as the wolves of course, but it is
very bad none the less and people should make a definite
point of trying not to let it happen by trying very hard to
make every shot a kill shot, or at least severly crippling
so they can get to the animal and follow through.
dh
>pearl wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message news:iqcdd4huft5sq0k9b...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thoreau on the moose
>>>>
>>>> The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>>>> Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Theroux
>>>> September 14, 2008
>>>>
>>>> All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>>>> enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>>>> marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>> It's interesting in a most pathetic way that the people who are critical
>>> of moose hunting are also often the same people who would re-introduce
>>> wolves which can have catastrophic influence on moose populations. They
>>> do that of course by chasing terrified young and baby moose to the point
>>> of exhaustion, then strangling them to death with their jaws as their
>>> fellows begin to rip them apart and devour them while the young victims
>>> are still alive and conscious.
>>
>> It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
>
>[snip copypasta vomit]
>
>As repugnant at cockfighting is, you already know why he does it.
>First, because he's completely depraved. Secondly, because he feels he
>can justify it through his bizarre, discredited illogic of the larder:
>"at least they 'get to experience life'."
Many game chickens have much better much longer lives
than the billions of chickens associated with egg production
or the broiler industry Goo, which you dishonestly pretend to
support and contribute to.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not>
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20040705005744/http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> > wrote in message news:vdmdnde2sa-LRUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:24KdnfDGj_EBJUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>> ..
> >>>>> It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
> >>>> [snip copypasta vomit]
> >>>>
> >>>> As repugnant at cockfighting is, you already know why he does it.
> >>>> First, because he's completely depraved.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your weird, fucked-up, new-age fascism beliefs aren't any better.
> >>> 'The behaviour of any Fascist [snip nausea-inducing copypasta bullshit]
> >> YOUR behavior, that is.
> >
> > "For anyone wondering,
>
> are, lesley. It has been well established for years.
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to
other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert
attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is
achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is
actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
....'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Dutch
> "For anyone wondering, I'm neither --- nor ----, nor anyone Mr. Ball
> is very acquainted with. I do however hate a net-bully. I believe
> that people ought to have the right to freely voice their thoughts and
> opinions without being subject to personal attack. Unfortunately
> there exist a few individuals who have a habit of turning newsgroups
> supposedly devoted to "A" topic into vicious interrogations on the
> personal matters of other posters, often cleverly manipulating the
> other posters into taking sides and believing these "personal" issues
> are of more importance than they merit. It's sick. It's sad, and
> it's quite childish IMHO
You get personal in a most childish way every time you respond to me. For
example, you mangle my screen name in a taunting, demeaning fashion as any
schoolyard bully might do. I'm not complaining per se, usenet is about free
speech, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your complaint.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:CLudnZCeb-5AQUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not>
> >>> http://web.archive.org/web/20040705005744/http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> >>> wrote in message news:vdmdnde2sa-LRUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:24KdnfDGj_EBJUrV...@earthlink.com...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>>> It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
> >>>>>> [snip copypasta vomit]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As repugnant at cockfighting is, you already know why he does it.
> >>>>>> First, because he's completely depraved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your weird, fucked-up, new-age fascism beliefs aren't any better.
> >>>>> 'The behaviour of any Fascist [snip nausea-inducing copypasta bullshit]
> >>>> YOUR behavior, that is.
> >>> "For anyone wondering,
> >> No one is wondering what a stupid, lying, totalitarian-minded fuck you
> >> are, lesley. It has been well established for years.
> >
> > 'Bullies
>
"Mr Ball shows no shame in his attacks and hatred for women.
As a deformed hunch back dwarf he decided early in life to hate those
that he felt rejected by. Never mind that many deformed people are
successful loving people that find love in life. He long ago gave up on love
and chose hate. The relative anonymity of a computer has given him the
ultimate tool of a coward full of hate.
He knows how much hating and being hated is his life. That's all he
really knows. The rest is all a game to hate and be hated. It's what
feeds the fires inside. Love escaped him many years ago. He thrives
on conflict and abuse.
He is an empty shell that spews and pukes hate - especially at the women
that will never love him. Not because he is a hunch backed dwarf but
because he is a hate filled assh*le that deserves all the hate he begs for.
Shine on Mr Ball - you are a legend in your own mind.
..'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
pearl
RE Subject: ADM Sells Morning Star to Kellogs Now all ...
... Both vegetarians and vegans are for the most part oblivious to the reality ... On the
contrary, most of them are quietly but insufferably sanctimonious about their ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 26 2002, 6:42 pm by Dutch - 2 messages - 2 authors
web site
... Vegans are simply people who avoid animal products. ... Vegans are fundamentally
sanctimonious hypocrites. Some will be evangelistic about this some not. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Oct 6 2002, 7:40 pm by Dutch - 116 messages - 12 authors
The stupid AA "logic"
... Fair enough! Vegans are also social misfits, that's why they are suited to the
adversarial role they play. Yeah right! ... It's a sanctimonious pose, nothing more. ...
talk.politics.animals - Nov 6 2002, 7:46 am by Dutch - 223 messages - 23 authors
Principles And Rules Part I attn: Dutch
... Ahhhh, another sanctimonious comment from your moral high ground. ...
Vegans are vegetarians who seize the opportunity to declare themselves righteous. ...
talk.politics.animals - Nov 15 2002, 7:49 pm by Dutch - 254 messages - 23 authors
How about a vegetarian explanation?
... I answered your question, vegans are smarmy, navel-gazing, deluded,
sanctimonious twits, thats what EVERYBODY hates about them. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Nov 21 2002, 7:30 pm by Dutch - 24 messages - 12 authors
a vegetable?
... Vegans are sanctimonious hypocrities, they view consuming animal products
as immoral while they remain conveniently unconcerned about the systematic and ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 22 2003, 7:39 am by Dutch - 45 messages - 14 authors
"Avowedly vegan"
... That's just sanctimonious rhetoric, vegans are not living according to any
"sanctity of life" principle and are not better people. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 16 2004, 8:12 pm by Dutch - 110 messages - 17 authors
Where Can I Find Meat Ingredients?
... You're a prototypical sanctimonious vegetarian who doesn't realize that every bit
of ... Vegans are at least as outraged about the killing of wild animals for food ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jan 17 2004, 9:32 pm by Dutch - 41 messages - 10 authors
Nick hasn't grasped the significance of cd's [Profanity-free ...
... I don't. Or that I am sanctimonious, which I have not been in any of our
discussions. ... Vegans are in denial about the > > very nature of reality. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jun 27 2004, 8:08 pm by Dutch - 63 messages - 10 authors
OT: tv review -- meet your vegan mommy
... are like that. Most vegans I have known, seen, or listened to seem like that, more
or less, that's what I dislike about them. Controlling, sanctimonious, narrow ...
alt.food.vegan - Dec 4 2004, 8:40 am by Dutch - 142 messages - 15 authors
Choices STILL confuse Jonny Nymshift
... Vegans are people with something missing in their lives which causes them
to seek out some "Great Solution". Veganism fills that ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Feb 4 2005, 6:34 pm by Dutch - 385 messages - 11 authors
Skunky calls it like she sees it.
... with vegans, and not with your racial example, is that ALL vegans are doing the ...
your diet has been frittered away by your narrow-minded sanctimonious attitude. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Apr 6 2005, 7:38 am by Dutch - 140 messages - 13 authors
leather gloves vs. synthetic gloves
... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy targets, a bunch
of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big targets on your faces.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am 2006 by Dutch - 311 messages - 21 authors
I'm considering being a vegetarian...
... You concocted the term "mass mechanized slaughter" because it's scary sounding,
and vegans are all about appealing to emotions, not reason. ...
alt.food.vegan - Jun 10, 2:11 am 2006 by Dutch - 119 messages - 19 authors
...........................
Dutch
A quote collection! impressive! I didn't "get personal" in a childish
way in any of those quotes, I criticize veganism and how it, in my
opinion, effects the psyche of adherents in a negative way. I have also
stated many times that I view vegans as fundamentally good compassionate
people, why aren't those quotes in your collection? That is all fair
comment in discussing the ethics of vegetarianism.
Are you acknowledging your childish retorts to me? Do I need to produce
a quote collection? ditch?
pearl
Tip of the iceberg. Don't act so surprised, you've seen it before.
> I didn't "get personal" in a childish way in any of those quotes,
Every single vegan, like an eight-year-old having a temper-tantrum.
> I criticize veganism
Where?
> and how it, in my opinion,
Nowhere in the above do we see the words "in my opinion".
> effects the psyche of adherents in a negative way.
'.. Anglen echoed Dr. Barnard's comments about vegetarians on high
fiber diets being less violent. The NEWSTART prisoners are housed
together in one section of the building. "When there is a violent
outbreak, 90% of the time it's on the non-vegetarian side of the facility,"
says Anglen. A vegan himself, Anglen says there are rare occurrences
of violence on the vegan side of the prison.
"There is a noticeable difference in the personalities of the vegetarian
inmates. They smile more, are fully racially integrated, attend religious
classes and anger management classes eagerly," he told VIP. "Within
10 days the vegan inmates express improvement in how they feel."
Anglen detailed some of the health improvements of the vegan inmates.
He described how diabetics were able to rid themselves of medications,
a good number saw their skin conditions improved, many lost excess
weight, and most felt more energetic.
Among the non-vegetarian inmates there is little mixing and more
inter-racial fighting. When they are released, there is a 70 to 80% rate
of recidivism. In the four years the prison has operated, only 30 to 40
of the NEWSTART inmates have returned. "We have a waiting list to
get into the program," he says.
The Victor Valley Medium Correctional Facility is a privately owned
prison that is operated by Maranatha Corrections, LLC under
contract with the California Department of Corrections. ..
..'
http://www.vegparadise.com/news18.html
One really only need check the archives of aaev, tpa, afv, etc.
> I have also
> stated many times that I view vegans as fundamentally good compassionate
> people, why aren't those quotes in your collection?
Maybe because I've never seen you say that? Show me quotes.
> That is all fair
> comment in discussing the ethics of vegetarianism.
Ad hominem is not a valid argument, it's just a dishonest cop-out.
> Are you acknowledging your childish retorts to me? Do I need to produce
> a quote collection? ditch?
"Oh puleeze, you people are such tiresome poseurs." "Cult-speak".
- just this week, entirely unprovoked. You're a damned hypocrite.
dh
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:14:01 +0100, "pearl" lied:
>>
>>><dh@.> pointed out:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Thoreau on the moose
>>>> >
>>>> >The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>>>> >Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>>>> >
>>>> >By Paul Theroux
>>>> >September 14, 2008
>>>> >
>>>> >All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>>>> >enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>>>> >marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting in a most pathetic way that the people who are critical
>>>> of moose hunting are also often the same people who would re-introduce
>>>> wolves which can have catastrophic influence on moose populations. They
>>>> do that of course by chasing terrified young and baby moose to the point
>>>> of exhaustion, then strangling them to death with their jaws as their
>>>> fellows begin to rip them apart and devour them while the young victims
>>>> are still alive and conscious.
>>>
>>>It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>
>No, it isn't.
Of course that's another blatant lie, Goo.
>You engage in dogfighting, too.
And again the Goober tells an extremely blatant lie and one that's
almost certainly illegal.
>>Dare you tell the truth? LOL...of course you
>>dare not...lol...
Goo certainly continued with the Team Eliminationist lying. It's
not unusual though, and as I pointed out "pearl" and now the
Goober dare not tell the truth. The question is as it usually is
with Goo and pretty much all eliminationists now that we're
discussing their dishonesty: What do they hope to gain by
their blatant and extremely contemptible lying? Do they really
believe their lies make them ethically superior, or are they even
stupider than that?
Let's consider what we know for sure. "pearl" wants to
produce more suffering for prey animals and their predators
alike, that much is certain. When I pointed the fact out, she
attacked me by telling blatant lies about me personally. When
I pointed out that she was lying as well as wanting to produce
more suffering for wildlife, Goo jumped in to help her by telling
even more lies. Still, what do they think they gain with all of
their lying?
dh
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:16:40 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>Irrelevant.
LOL! On some planets it is Goober, but not on this one.
dh
Her reaction to me pointing out that she wants to impose more
suffering on wildlife, was to tell a blatant personal lie about me.
Your hero the Goober's reaction to me pointing out her lie, was
to tell an even more blatant personal lie about me. Your own
hypocrisy makes you think those were good and admirable things
to do.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote>>
>> I didn't "get personal" in a childish way in any of those quotes,
>
> Every single vegan, like an eight-year-old having a temper-tantrum.
What?
>
>> I criticize veganism
>
> Where?
In every quote.
>> and how it, in my opinion,
>
> Nowhere in the above do we see the words "in my opinion".
Its implicit and obvious. Did you imagine that in giving my opinion of
veganism I was claiming to report on some scientific study about vegan
attitudes?
>> effects the psyche of adherents in a negative way.
>> I have also
>> stated many times that I view vegans as fundamentally good compassionate
>> people, why aren't those quotes in your collection?
>
> Maybe because I've never seen you say that? Show me quotes.
I don't save quotes, you should have been paying attention. If you're
interested look for yourself.
>> That is all fair
>> comment in discussing the ethics of vegetarianism.
>
> Ad hominem is not a valid argument, it's just a dishonest cop-out.
Its not the ad hominem fallacy. I'm not *using* my criticism of veganism
and vegan attitudes to prop up some other point, my criticism of vegan
attitudes *is* my point.
>> Are you acknowledging your childish retorts to me? Do I need to produce
>> a quote collection? ditch?
>
> "Oh puleeze, you people are such tiresome poseurs." "Cult-speak".
It *is* cult-speak, its speaking in tongue, its using an *in* language to
exclude normal people, to make you feel special, above others. Its perfectly
indicative of the elitism issue I am talking about.
So you refuse to acknowledge your use of childish taunting and mangling of
my name even though its obvious that you do it. Why are you so obviously
avoiding the use of the taunt "ditch" in your replies in this thread? You
haven't responded to me in two years without calling me "ditch". Go ahead if
it makes you feel special.
> - just this week, entirely unprovoked. You're a damned hypocrite.
No, I am openly critical of veganism and the attitude of vegans because I
think that you are doing yourself and the rest of society a disservice with
your high-horse posture. To be a hypocrite I would have to be complaining
bitterly about being childishly taunted. I'm not, the only reason I
mentioned it was to reveal the hypocrisy in your constant complaints about
Rudy.
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote>>
>
> >> I didn't "get personal" in a childish way in any of those quotes,
> >
> > Every single vegan, like an eight-year-old having a temper-tantrum.
>
> What?
RE Subject: ADM Sells Morning Star to Kellogs Now all ...
...........................
> >> I criticize veganism
> >
> > Where?
>
> In every quote.
False.
> >> and how it, in my opinion,
> >
> > Nowhere in the above do we see the words "in my opinion".
>
> Its implicit and obvious. Did you imagine that in giving my opinion of
> veganism I was claiming to report on some scientific study about vegan
> attitudes?
How would the casual reader know. You stated everything as fact.
--restore--
> effects the psyche of adherents in a negative way.
'.. Anglen echoed Dr. Barnard's comments about vegetarians on high
--end restore--
> >> effects the psyche of adherents in a negative way.
> >> I have also
> >> stated many times that I view vegans as fundamentally good compassionate
> >> people, why aren't those quotes in your collection?
> >
> > Maybe because I've never seen you say that? Show me quotes.
>
> I don't save quotes, you should have been paying attention. If you're
> interested look for yourself.
No, I'm not interested in anything you have to say, dodge. In fact
most of yours, ball's and dh@'s posts are marked as read, unread.
> >> That is all fair
> >> comment in discussing the ethics of vegetarianism.
> >
> > Ad hominem is not a valid argument, it's just a dishonest cop-out.
>
> Its not the ad hominem fallacy. I'm not *using* my criticism of veganism
> and vegan attitudes to prop up some other point, my criticism of vegan
> attitudes *is* my point.
You're sanctimoniously criticizing a monster of your own creation.
> >> Are you acknowledging your childish retorts to me? Do I need to produce
> >> a quote collection? ditch?
> >
> > "Oh puleeze, you people are such tiresome poseurs." "Cult-speak".
>
> It *is* cult-speak, its speaking in tongue, its using an *in* language to
> exclude normal people, to make you feel special, above others. Its perfectly
> indicative of the elitism issue I am talking about.
Here's a great example of ditch pacing his furrow deeper and deeper.
Thank someone in their own language out of courtesy and friendship,
and be accused by this "Dutch" of being in a cult, speaking in tongues,
trying to exclude people to make yourself feel special and above others,
and being elitist. All this on top of another frankly unforgivable insult.
> So you refuse to acknowledge your use of childish taunting and mangling of
> my name even though its obvious that you do it.
It's descriptive. From now on I'll probably alternate it with "dodge".
> Why are you so obviously
> avoiding the use of the taunt "ditch" in your replies in this thread? You
> haven't responded to me in two years without calling me "ditch".
You richly deserve everything you get, and much much more, ditch.
> Go ahead if it makes you feel special.
It's the truth.
> > - just this week, entirely unprovoked. You're a damned hypocrite.
>
> No, I am openly critical of veganism and the attitude of vegans because I
> think that you are doing yourself and the rest of society a disservice with
> your high-horse posture.
Projection.
"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought I had
made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty about their diet.
" Dutch 21/8/2006
'The extent of a person's knowledge creates their reality as much as the
truth, because the human mind can only contemplate that which it has
been exposed to. When objects are viewed without understanding, the
mind will try to reach for something that it already recognizes, in order
to process what it is viewing.
..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
> To be a hypocrite I would have to be complaining
> bitterly about being childishly taunted. I'm not,
You just have.
> the only reason I
> mentioned it was to reveal the hypocrisy in your constant complaints about
> Rudy.
You've got to be kidding! I've every right to complain about the scum.
Dutch
> I've every right to complain about the scum.
As he has every right to heap abuse on you, as you do on me. Your incessant
whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>
> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
Blame the victim, eh. Why do you support abusive behaviour?
> as you do on me.
To bullies I reply in kind. Remember your "Pretty Polly"s?
> Your incessant
> whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
What "incessant whining"? When I can be bothered, I point
out what you're doing. Not that it isn't abundantly obvious.
pearl
> stupid air-head slut blabbered:
> >> bitterly about being childishly taunted. I'm not,
> >
> > You just have.
> >
> >> the only reason I
> >> mentioned it was to reveal the hypocrisy in your constant complaints about
> >> Rudy.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding! I've every right to complain about the scum.
>
> airhead, you *are* a paid sex worker (aka whore), you *do* talk shit
> every time you try to talk about anthropology or anatomy, you *don't*
> have any expertise in any scientific field, you *do* embrace a weird,
> pathological food religion that you want to impose, by force, on others.
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to
other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert
attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is
achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is
actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
..
When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:
a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
> You're a lying air-headed new-age slut, and you have no legitimate
> ground for complaint.
'The serial bully:
- is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up
anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
- has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private,
but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to)
believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the
serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described
as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management
and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the
real person, Jekyll is an act
- excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity
to deceive
- relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he
or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as
in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the
accompanying jargon
- cannot be trusted or relied upon
- fails to fulfil commitments
- is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development;
whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully
displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
- is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
- exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual
behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there
are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment,
perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion,
sexual violence or sexual abuse
- in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
- holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a
different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners,
etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great
lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
- is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense
of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
- is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and
everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an
immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted
to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality
or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively
maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything
they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see
through their deception and their mask of sanity
- displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to
value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
- shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow
and arguments that don't hold water
- flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never
had a proper conversation
- refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
- is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
- undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an
adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
- is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate
incriminating information about them
- is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably
about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
- may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held
them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous
of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance
of the vendetta
- is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone
who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
- gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
- is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions
(eg guilt)
- poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
- when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of
others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
- is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
- often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking
need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate
person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully
sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to
the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen
by others
- is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief
or affiliation
- is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
- is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
- is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire
- is always a taker and never a giver
- is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their
qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity,
decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying
(immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
- often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or
affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
- knows the words but not the song
- is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and
fabrication
- sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when
engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is
often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic
Responsibility
The serial bully appears to lack insight into his or her behaviour and seems
to be oblivious to the crassness and inappropriateness thereof; however, it
is more likely that the bully knows what they are doing but elects to switch
off the moral and ethical considerations by which normal people are bound.
If the bully knows what they are doing, they are responsible for their
behaviour and thus liable for its consequences to other people. If the bully
doesn't know what they are doing, they should be suspended from duty on
the grounds of diminished responsibility and the provisions of the Mental
Health Act should apply.
...'
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
dh
>No, it isn't.
Yes it's still a lie Goober and it won't become any less a lie
the more often you tell it. All you'll do is keep lying and lying
and lying as I've been pointing out and pointing out and
pointing out, Goo.
>>>You engage in dogfighting, too.
>>
>> And again the Goober tells an extremely blatant lie and one that's
>>almost certainly illegal.
>
>No.
You're dishonestly accusing me of engaging in felony activity
on a world wide public forum Goober, and that sort of lying is
almost certainly illegal.
>>>>Dare you tell the truth? LOL...of course you
>>>>dare not...lol...
>>
>> Goo certainly continued with the Team Eliminationist lying. It's
>>not unusual though, and as I pointed out "pearl" and now the
>>Goober dare not tell the truth. The question is as it usually is
>>with Goo and pretty much all eliminationists now that we're
>>discussing their dishonesty: What do they hope to gain by
>>their blatant and extremely contemptible lying? Do they really
>>believe their lies make them ethically superior, or are they even
>>stupider than that?
>> Let's consider what we know for sure. "pearl" wants to
>>produce more suffering for prey animals and their predators
>>alike, that much is certain. When I pointed the fact out, she
>>attacked me by telling blatant lies about me personally. When
>>I pointed out that she was lying as well as wanting to produce
>>more suffering for wildlife, Goo jumped in to help her by telling
>>even more lies. Still, what do they think they gain with all of
>>their lying?
>
>No.
That's not an answer you stupid Goober. WHAT do you
think you gain by your lying? You obviously do it deliberately
for some reason, so what do you think you get out of all your
lying, Goo?
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
>> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>
>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>
> Blame the victim, eh.
Playing the victim game again..
> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
I support freedom of speech.
>> as you do on me.
>
> To bullies I reply in kind. Remember your "Pretty Polly"s?
I don't bully anyone.
>> Your incessant
>> whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
>
> What "incessant whining"?
"Blame the victim.." You constantly pose as a victim.
> When I can be bothered, I point
> out what you're doing. Not that it isn't abundantly obvious.
You're not "pointing out" when you mangle my screen name and use personal
attacks against me. You're using schoolyard bully tactics. I don't care, I'm
just "pointing out" the hypocrisy of you playing the "victim".
dh
You lied about me for pointing out that you want to
increase suffering for wildlife. What's the truth, do you
even know? You really can't dare to say. That's pretty
damn low, especially considering what you're whining
about in this thread.
dh
>Right here it is
In contrast to that display of extreme stupidity this is the
only planet in our star system where it does matter, you poor
bewildered Goober. A person must wonder: Could Goo really
be too stupid to understand that obvious fact, and if not, what
does he think he could gain if he could persuade people to
believe he really is that stupid? Can you answer what people
are wondering Goo? Are you really as stupid as you insist?
Or, Goober, are you pretending to be even stupider than you
actually are, and if so why? Why does your doctor say you do,
Goo?
>, Goo. It is 100% irrelevant that the poor fowl "get to
>experience life".
On top of a most self-absorbed inconsideration for others, that
selfish thinking also displays remarkably ignorant naivety born of
your own stupidity, Goo.
>It doesn't mean a thing.
In contrast to that lie it means a lot of things Goober, like all of
these things:
and more.
pearl
13...@newsfe09.iad...
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >
> >> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
> >>
> >> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
> >
> > Blame the victim, eh.
>
> Playing the victim game again..
Never. That's like saying a moose is 'playing the victim' when
targeted by a blood-thirsty maniac seeking a thrill. It's wrong.
It is common knowledge that abusers will blame their targets.
And you've just revealed here for all your own sick character.
> > Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>
> I support freedom of speech.
No. You support abuse intended to repress free speech.
> >> as you do on me.
> >
> > To bullies I reply in kind. Remember your "Pretty Polly"s?
>
> I don't bully anyone.
"... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy
targets, a bunch of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big
targets on your faces.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am 2006 by Dutch
> >> Your incessant
> >> whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
> >
> > What "incessant whining"?
>
> "Blame the victim.." You constantly pose as a victim.
No. You constantly shift blame in order to avoid accountability.
> > When I can be bothered, I point
> > out what you're doing. Not that it isn't abundantly obvious.
>
> You're not "pointing out" when you mangle my screen name and use personal
> attacks against me. You're using schoolyard bully tactics. I don't care, I'm
> just "pointing out" the hypocrisy of you playing the "victim".
You even project your "posing as victim" and "incessant whining".
Tsk..
dh
>It means nothing
It means everything to the animals Goo. It means
whatever it means to humans though Goober. We're
not stuck with it meaning everything like the animals
are. Some of us can be considerate of the animals
and take them into consideration, and others of you
who want to see them eliminated can not.
>, Goo.
>>A person must wonder: Could Goo really
>>be too stupid to understand that obvious fact,
>
>You do not "consider" the lives of livestock
Obviously I do Goo. I also encourage other people
to, and that's what you eliminationists are opposed to.
Did you forget what you're trying to do here Goob?
Apparently so, you dumb Goober. Here it is: I encourage
people to give the lives of livestock as much or more
consideration than their deaths, and knowing that works
against the misnomer you insist they do not:
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>, Goo.
>
>>and if not, what
>>does he think he could gain if he could persuade people to
>>believe he really is that stupid?
>
>You only consider the products.
LOL! I can consider both, like most people can Goo. AFAWK
ONLY you eliminationists:
"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
"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
are incapable of and opposed to taking the animals into consideration
when considering the animals, Goo.
dh
>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>
>>> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>>
>>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>>
>> Blame the victim, eh.
>
>Playing the victim game again..
>
>> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>
>I support freedom of speech.
Not if it suggests consideration of lives of positive value
for livestock. You have opposed consideration for the lives
of all animals except specifically for mice, frogs and
groundhogs. Why you would allow consideration for those
three you have yet to explain. You're also opposed to people
pointing out the huge difference between decent AW and the
misnomer. Remember you suggested I kill myself rather than
point out what it is.
>>> as you do on me.
>>
>> To bullies I reply in kind. Remember your "Pretty Polly"s?
>
>I don't bully anyone.
>
>>> Your incessant
>>> whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
>>
>> What "incessant whining"?
>
>"Blame the victim.." You constantly pose as a victim.
Maybe that explains why she attacked me for trying to get
her to tell us what a liar the Goober is, unless he really was
telling the truth about all of her beliefs which seems very
unlikely. If Goo really was lying about some of it then maybe
she attacked me because she wanted to remain the poor
victim instead of exposing the Goober's dishonesties.
>> When I can be bothered, I point
>> out what you're doing. Not that it isn't abundantly obvious.
>
>You're not "pointing out" when you mangle my screen name and use personal
>attacks against me. You're using schoolyard bully tactics. I don't care, I'm
>just "pointing out" the hypocrisy of you playing the "victim".
You're both a mess.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:nkd1e4pkp5fep6tn6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:25 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>>
>>>> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>>>
>>>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>>>
>>> Blame the victim, eh.
>>
>>Playing the victim game again..
>>
>>> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>>
>>I support freedom of speech.
>
> Not if it suggests consideration of lives of positive value
> for livestock. You have opposed consideration for the lives
> of all animals except specifically for mice, frogs and
> groundhogs. Why you would allow consideration for those
> three you have yet to explain.
The missing explanation is why in your opinion only livestock lives count.
The Logic of the Larder and Veganism have this in common, they say that
livestock are an abomination, you say that they are a credit to mankind
because/when they represent "lives of positive value". They fail to account
for the deaths of wildlife (the cd argument), you fail to account for the
wildlife that livestock replace.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote >>
>> >> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>> >>
>> >> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>> >
>> > Blame the victim, eh.
>>
>> Playing the victim game again..
>
> Never. That's like saying a moose is 'playing the victim' when
> targeted by a blood-thirsty maniac seeking a thrill. It's wrong.
So you're like a poor defenseless animal? What weapons do we have that you
do not?
pearl
Propensity for abuse, dishonesty, subterfuge, ..... You couldn't
take on either the moose or myself without resorting to trickery.
pearl
You've failed to support your "cd argument" with credible evidence.
Pesticides are recognized as harmful to both humans and non-humans.
That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
Dutch
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote >>
>> >> >> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>> >> >
>> >> > Blame the victim, eh.
>> >>
>> >> Playing the victim game again..
>> >
>> > Never. That's like saying a moose is 'playing the victim' when
>> > targeted by a blood-thirsty maniac seeking a thrill. It's wrong.
>>
>> So you're like a poor defenseless animal? What weapons do we have that
>> you
>> do not?
>
> Propensity for abuse, dishonesty, subterfuge, ..... You couldn't
> take on either the moose or myself without resorting to trickery.
You have a propensity for indulging in personal attacks every time you
respond to me.
Dutch
The argument has been amply supported.
> Pesticides are recognized as harmful to both humans and non-humans.
Those two statements are contradictory.
> That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
pearl
A moose would also 'have a propensity' for kicking you from
here to beyond in response to your persistant abusive attacks.
pearl
Show us: ...........................................................................................
> > Pesticides are recognized as harmful to both humans and non-humans.
>
> Those two statements are contradictory.
You keep banging on about "shredded, sliced, diced, mangled", etc.
> > That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
>
> So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
Really?
dh
>It means *nothing* to anyone
LOL!!! It ONLY means nothing to those of you who
are in favor of elimination, Goo.
>No. You only consider the products
It only seems that way to people who are in favor of elimination.
>>>>Can you answer what people
>>>>are wondering Goo? Are you really as stupid as you insist?
>>>>Or, Goober, are you pretending to be even stupider than you
>>>>actually are, and if so why? Why does your doctor say you do,
>>>>Goo?
>
>You do not "consider" the lives of farm animals, Goo.
What does your doctor say when you tell him the person
who you insult most for encouraging consideration of the
lives of farm animals, doesn't consider the lives of farm
animals Goo? Does he also ask you why you want people
to believe you're really stupid enough to think such stupid
thoughts?
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:nkd1e4pkp5fep6tn6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:25 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>>news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>>>>
>>>>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>>>>
>>>> Blame the victim, eh.
>>>
>>>Playing the victim game again..
>>>
>>>> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>>>
>>>I support freedom of speech.
>>
>> Not if it suggests consideration of lives of positive value
>> for livestock. You have opposed consideration for the lives
>> of all animals except specifically for mice, frogs and
>> groundhogs. Why you would allow consideration for those
>> three you have yet to explain.
>
>The missing explanation is
Why you only want to consider those three, unless there are
more and if so what are they. Those have always been missing.
>why in your opinion only livestock lives count.
The livestock exist, so their lives should be given priority thinking
instead of none as you misnomer advocates would like to have it.
Then on top of that there's the fact that we can provide better
lives for them than many wild animals have. And there's also the fact
that wildlife thrive better in grazing areas than in crop fields. There's
also the fact that grass raised animal products contribute to far fewer
wildlife deaths than many of your veggie products like all grains...
especially rice of course. That has all been pointed out to you many
times in the past, contrary to your dishonest statement.
>The Logic of the Larder and Veganism have this in common, they say that
>livestock are an abomination,
LOL! Of course they do, since they both support elimination instead
of providing decent AW.
>you say that they are a credit to mankind
>because/when they represent "lives of positive value".
The lives of positive value should be taken into consideration along
with everything else, in contrast to what you eliminationists want to see.
>They fail to account
>for the deaths of wildlife (the cd argument), you fail to account for the
>wildlife that livestock replace.
It takes all of that into consideration and comes to the conclusion
that it's ethically equivalent or superior to provide lives of positive
value for livestock, as opposed to possibly allowing a few wild animals
--if any--to inhabit the areas that would support the livestock.
dh
You were able to accept the fact that there are millions of frogs in
rice fields everywhere except in Texas. Many of them are killed. Many
other animals die in crop production as well, and you insult them by
denying it.
dh
>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:25 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>> news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>>>>> I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>>>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>>>> Blame the victim, eh.
>>> Playing the victim game again..
>>>
>>>> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>>> I support freedom of speech.
>>
>> Not if it suggests consideration of lives of positive value
>
>Bullshit. You write bullshit.
>
>You do not give *any* consideration to the lives of animals
Everyone should take the lives of livestock into consideration,
Goo.
Dutch
The analogy is misguided, I'm not attacking any particular moose. To use
that analogy, I would have to be criticizing moose behaviour in general, as
in saying that they have low intelligence, stumble into the path of cars or
something. If a moose was just "being a moose" he would never know or care
that I had that opinion of him. It's just a terrible analogy.
There's a distinction between a personal attack and criticism of a
philosophy. My criticisms are focused on "veganism" and how it affects
vegans in general, how they think and act towards others. There are
exceptions. When I say a vegan is being a hypocrite, I don't mean that she
or he has a character deficit, the point I am making is that he is a victim
of a way of thinking that tends to twist one's perceptions.
Dutch
You've seen it many times, Steven Davis being the most obvious example.
Metheny's parsing of the Davis arithmetic does not change the basic
findings, that agricultural machinery decimates small animal populations.
Also the idea itself is self-evident to any honest observer. Even Rupert
accepts it. The real idea behind veganism is more of an AR/political one, a
feeling that the farming of animals is an injustice agsinst the animals,
somewhat like most people think of say, dog fighting.
>> > Pesticides are recognized as harmful to both humans and non-humans.
>>
>> Those two statements are contradictory.
>
> You keep banging on about "shredded, sliced, diced, mangled", etc.
That's rick etter. Chemicals are what I say are most damaging, in the case
of most ground crops, herbicides, with tree crops it's pesticides. There is
also chemical fertilizer which strips away soil diversity. The Canadian
prairies are a virtual wasteland because of the *human* crops, not
livestock feed, not pasture lands, which support the greatest diversity of
wildlife, and where grazing animals live a nearly natural existence.
>> > That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
>>
>> So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
>
> Really?
Yes really. Why do you find that amazing? I had to explain to a cashier at
the grocery store the other day why I buy organic. He said "Is it really
better for you?" he didn't know all the reasons that organic is better.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:fh74e4dg16j4tndrj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:07:09 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:nkd1e4pkp5fep6tn6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:36:25 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>>>news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Blame the victim, eh.
>>>>
>>>>Playing the victim game again..
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>>>>
>>>>I support freedom of speech.
>>>
>>> Not if it suggests consideration of lives of positive value
>>> for livestock. You have opposed consideration for the lives
>>> of all animals except specifically for mice, frogs and
>>> groundhogs. Why you would allow consideration for those
>>> three you have yet to explain.
>>
>>The missing explanation is
>
> Why you only want to consider those three, unless there are
> more and if so what are they. Those have always been missing.
Why do you think that all the wild species have to be enumerated and named?
They are there, everywhere.
>>why in your opinion only livestock lives count.
>
> The livestock exist, so their lives should be given priority thinking
What priority thinking?
> instead of none as you misnomer advocates would like to have it.
We're not misnomer advocates, we're meat eaters. The term doesn't even apply
to ARAs, it's just nonsense. Wanting theoretical animals to exist is not
better than not wanting theoretical animals to exist.
> Then on top of that there's the fact that we can provide better
> lives for them than many wild animals have.
Easier maybe, but "better"? Who are we to say?
> And there's also the fact
> that wildlife thrive better in grazing areas than in crop fields.
Probably, due to less poison, but so what?
> There's
> also the fact that grass raised animal products contribute to far fewer
> wildlife deaths than many of your veggie products like all grains...
> especially rice of course. That has all been pointed out to you many
> times in the past, contrary to your dishonest statement.
That's probably true, but it's a completely different argument, you're
moving the goalposts.
>
>>The Logic of the Larder and Veganism have this in common, they say that
>>livestock are an abomination,
>
> LOL! Of course they do, since they both support elimination instead
> of providing decent AW.
The LOL doesn't support elimination, you don't, I don't either.
>>you say that they are a credit to mankind
>>because/when they represent "lives of positive value".
>
> The lives of positive value should be taken into consideration along
> with everything else, in contrast to what you eliminationists want to see.
I'm not an eliminationist, I eat meat. I want livestock raising to continue
and to be reformed to improve AW. I just don't like the Logic of the Larder.
>>They fail to account
>>for the deaths of wildlife (the cd argument), you fail to account for the
>>wildlife that livestock replace.
>
> It takes all of that into consideration and comes to the conclusion
> that it's ethically equivalent or superior to provide lives of positive
> value for livestock, as opposed to possibly allowing a few wild animals
> --if any--to inhabit the areas that would support the livestock.
I don't think that eliminating livestock is ethically superior, I think
reforming the mass production process is necessary. Most of the meat you eat
is probably produced in factory farms where low wage workers and illegal
aliens struggle to keep up with unrealistic quotas and the animals suffer as
a result. That's not "ethically superior". Implying that just because those
animals had some moments of enjoyment here and there that we can derive
satisfaction from that is just a putrid self-serving way to think.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
[..]
>>>> > That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
>>>>
>>>> So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> Yes really. Why do you find that amazing? I had to explain to a cashier
>> at the grocery store the other day why I buy organic. He said "Is it
>> really better for you?" he didn't know all the reasons that organic is
>> better.
>
> I'm not convinced it is objectively better, or is enough better to justify
> the cost. I see it largely as a self-indulgence of well-off people in
> rich countries. If some hypothetical global law were to be passed that
> mandated organic agriculture only, there would be famine, and the death
> toll would probably be in the billions.
I can't disagree with that, it's a complex issue. First, you don't really
know what all the standards are or what the enforcement is like. In my
opinion, meat, dairy and eggs just taste better, and I am fairly confident
that the husbandry of the animals is superior overall. With produce it's
more hit and miss. I'll pay the extra if the organic looks good and the
premium isn't egregious. I like the idea that they use natural fertilizer
and that there is fewer chemicals in the food. It's personal preference,
it's not a complete solution to anything.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:gbd9he$lrm$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gbbcgd$c4p$1...@aioe.org...
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >
> >> > I've every right to complain about the scum.
> >>
> >> As he has every right to heap abuse on you,
> >
> > Blame the victim, eh.
>
> Playing the victim game again..
Never. That's like saying a moose is 'playing the victim' when
targeted by a blood-thirsty maniac seeking a thrill. It's wrong.
It is common knowledge that abusers will blame their targets.
And you've just revealed here for all your own sick character.
> > Why do you support abusive behaviour?
>
> I support freedom of speech.
No. You support abuse intended to repress free speech.
> >> as you do on me.
> >
> > To bullies I reply in kind. Remember your "Pretty Polly"s?
>
> I don't bully anyone.
... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy targets, a bunch
of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big targets on your faces.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am 2006 by Dutch - 311 messages - 21 authors
> >> Your incessant
> >> whining about being "bullied" is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
> >
> > What "incessant whining"?
>
> "Blame the victim.." You constantly pose as a victim.
No. You constantly shift blame in order to avoid accountability.
> > When I can be bothered, I point
> > out what you're doing. Not that it isn't abundantly obvious.
>
> You're not "pointing out" when you mangle my screen name and use personal
> attacks against me. You're using schoolyard bully tactics. I don't care, I'm
> just "pointing out" the hypocrisy of you playing the "victim".
You even project your "posing as victim" and "incessant whining".
Tsk..
dh
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:40:13 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:02:54 -0700, Goo lied:
>It means nothing, Goo - nothing to anyone.
In contrast to that lie it means everything to
people who are in favor of decent AW, Goo.
dh
So you think we should consider all wildlife, and no livestock,
is that what you're saying now?
>>>why in your opinion only livestock lives count.
>>
>> The livestock exist, so their lives should be given priority thinking
>
>What priority thinking?
That they already exist and more will exist in the future unless
you people can force the change you want to make, so that
supposedly more wildlife might exist in some of the areas now
providing for livestock.
>> instead of none as you misnomer advocates would like to have it.
>
>We're not misnomer advocates, we're meat eaters. The term doesn't even apply
>to ARAs, it's just nonsense. Wanting theoretical animals to exist is not
>better than not wanting theoretical animals to exist.
You can only apply that to livestock, not to wildlife.
>> Then on top of that there's the fact that we can provide better
>> lives for them than many wild animals have.
>
>Easier maybe, but "better"? Who are we to say?
You can't even begin to think about it because it makes
you feel dirty. Maybe if you could you would be able to.
>> And there's also the fact
>> that wildlife thrive better in grazing areas than in crop fields.
>
>Probably, due to less poison, but so what?
Are you now saying we shouldn't care about livestock
or wildlife either?
>> There's
>> also the fact that grass raised animal products contribute to far fewer
>> wildlife deaths than many of your veggie products like all grains...
>> especially rice of course. That has all been pointed out to you many
>> times in the past, contrary to your dishonest statement.
>
>That's probably true, but it's a completely different argument, you're
>moving the goalposts.
It's another one of the things AW people can enjoy taking into
consideration but misnomer advocates can not.
>>>The Logic of the Larder and Veganism have this in common, they say that
>>>livestock are an abomination,
>>
>> LOL! Of course they do, since they both support elimination instead
>> of providing decent AW.
>
>The LOL doesn't support elimination,
Yes it does, as did its author.
>you don't,
No, I sure don't.
>I don't either.
You support it whenever you argue against consideration for
the lives of the animals we're discussing.
>>>you say that they are a credit to mankind
>>>because/when they represent "lives of positive value".
>>
>> The lives of positive value should be taken into consideration along
>> with everything else, in contrast to what you eliminationists want to see.
>
>I'm not an eliminationist, I eat meat. I want livestock raising to continue
>and to be reformed to improve AW. I just don't like the Logic of the Larder.
People are much more likely to deliberately contribute to decent lives
for livestock with their lifestyle if the consider and appreciate when
livestock have lives of positive value. That means I can't believe you're
in favor of decent AW since you oppose the thing that would be most
likely to produce it: Consideration for the animals' lives.
>>>They fail to account
>>>for the deaths of wildlife (the cd argument), you fail to account for the
>>>wildlife that livestock replace.
>>
>> It takes all of that into consideration and comes to the conclusion
>> that it's ethically equivalent or superior to provide lives of positive
>> value for livestock, as opposed to possibly allowing a few wild animals
>> --if any--to inhabit the areas that would support the livestock.
>
>I don't think that eliminating livestock is ethically superior, I think
>reforming the mass production process is necessary. Most of the meat you eat
>is probably produced in factory farms where low wage workers and illegal
>aliens struggle to keep up with unrealistic quotas and the animals suffer as
>a result.
The animals have to thrive in order for the farmers to raise them
successfully.
>That's not "ethically superior".
You're opposed to giving consideration to decent lives of positive
value, meaning you're opposed to giving consideration and credit
to the very situations you--apparently dishonestly!--claim to be in
favor of.
>Implying that just because those
>animals had some moments of enjoyment here and there that we can derive
>satisfaction from that is just a putrid self-serving way to think.
You're opposed to giving consideration to decent lives of positive
value, meaning you're opposed to giving consideration and credit
to the very situations you--apparently dishonestly!--claim to be in
favor of.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:pj37e4103l4dm0bcb...@4ax.com...
I asked you a question, you dodged it. I'll answer yours nonetheless. We
should "consider" all animals, i.e. we should be aware of how our actions
impact them. We should *not* however, ever consider that the fact that
livestock animals "get to experience life" is a moral victory for us as the
Logic of the Larder teaches, that is shabby sophism.
>>>>why in your opinion only livestock lives count.
>>>
>>> The livestock exist, so their lives should be given priority thinking
>>
>>What priority thinking?
>
> That they already exist and more will exist in the future unless
> you people can force the change you want to make, so that
> supposedly more wildlife might exist in some of the areas now
> providing for livestock.
We agree that the welfare of those that already exist and those that *will*
exist must be considered, but why should we prefer that livestock exist
instead of wildlife? Because they have easier lives? That makes no sense to
me.
>>> instead of none as you misnomer advocates would like to have it.
>>
>>We're not misnomer advocates, we're meat eaters. The term doesn't even
>>apply
>>to ARAs, it's just nonsense. Wanting theoretical animals to exist is not
>>better than not wanting theoretical animals to exist.
>
> You can only apply that to livestock, not to wildlife.
>
>>> Then on top of that there's the fact that we can provide better
>>> lives for them than many wild animals have.
>>
>>Easier maybe, but "better"? Who are we to say?
>
> You can't even begin to think about it because it makes
> you feel dirty. Maybe if you could you would be able to.
No, it just makes no sense to replace wildlife with livestock because we can
provide easy lives for them.
>
>>> And there's also the fact
>>> that wildlife thrive better in grazing areas than in crop fields.
>>
>>Probably, due to less poison, but so what?
>
> Are you now saying we shouldn't care about livestock
> or wildlife either?
Not at all, I don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>> There's
>>> also the fact that grass raised animal products contribute to far fewer
>>> wildlife deaths than many of your veggie products like all grains...
>>> especially rice of course. That has all been pointed out to you many
>>> times in the past, contrary to your dishonest statement.
>>
>>That's probably true, but it's a completely different argument, you're
>>moving the goalposts.
>
> It's another one of the things AW people can enjoy taking into
> consideration but misnomer advocates can not.
It's an important idea in this discussion but it has nothing to do with what
you and I are talking about. You mention it when you're trying to avoid
answering pointed criticisms of the Logic of the Larder.
>
>>>>The Logic of the Larder and Veganism have this in common, they say that
>>>>livestock are an abomination,
>>>
>>> LOL! Of course they do, since they both support elimination instead
>>> of providing decent AW.
>>
>>The LOL doesn't support elimination,
>
> Yes it does, as did its author.
Now you are completely confused. Salt coined the name, he didn't invent the
idea. He wrote an essay attacking the Logic of the Larder as "shabby
sophism". The notion that man sees himself as the benefactor of animals he
raises for food appears in writings dating back 2000 years.
>>you don't,
>
> No, I sure don't.
>
>>I don't either.
>
> You support it whenever you argue against consideration for
> the lives of the animals we're discussing.
Not all consideration is good or worthwhile. The consideration inherent in
the Logic of the Larder is only self-serving.
>>>>you say that they are a credit to mankind
>>>>because/when they represent "lives of positive value".
>>>
>>> The lives of positive value should be taken into consideration along
>>> with everything else, in contrast to what you eliminationists want to
>>> see.
>>
>>I'm not an eliminationist, I eat meat. I want livestock raising to
>>continue
>>and to be reformed to improve AW. I just don't like the Logic of the
>>Larder.
>
> People are much more likely to deliberately contribute to decent lives
> for livestock with their lifestyle if the consider and appreciate when
> livestock have lives of positive value. That means I can't believe you're
> in favor of decent AW since you oppose the thing that would be most
> likely to produce it: Consideration for the animals' lives.
The only consideration of the animals lives that is required apart from
their welfare is the awareness that they are living creatures. The
"consideration" you advocate, that they wouldn't have a life if we didn't
eat them, is actually consideration of our own role in "promoting their
existence". That's what the Logic of the Larder does.
>
>>>>They fail to account
>>>>for the deaths of wildlife (the cd argument), you fail to account for
>>>>the
>>>>wildlife that livestock replace.
>>>
>>> It takes all of that into consideration and comes to the conclusion
>>> that it's ethically equivalent or superior to provide lives of positive
>>> value for livestock, as opposed to possibly allowing a few wild animals
>>> --if any--to inhabit the areas that would support the livestock.
>>
>>I don't think that eliminating livestock is ethically superior, I think
>>reforming the mass production process is necessary. Most of the meat you
>>eat
>>is probably produced in factory farms where low wage workers and illegal
>>aliens struggle to keep up with unrealistic quotas and the animals suffer
>>as
>>a result.
>
> The animals have to thrive in order for the farmers to raise them
> successfully.
They have to maintain some semblance of health, they don't need to "thrive".
>>That's not "ethically superior".
>
> You're opposed to giving consideration to decent lives of positive
> value,
No, I am not.
> meaning you're opposed to giving consideration and credit
> to the very situations you--apparently dishonestly!--claim to be in
> favor of.
I am not opposed to giving credit for good AW. No credit is due for causing
livestock animals to experience life.
>
>>Implying that just because those
>>animals had some moments of enjoyment here and there that we can derive
>>satisfaction from that is just a putrid self-serving way to think.
>
> You're opposed to giving consideration to decent lives of positive
> value, meaning you're opposed to giving consideration and credit
> to the very situations you--apparently dishonestly!--claim to be in
> favor of.
See above.
pearl
> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
> [..]
> >>>> > That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
> >>>>
> >>>> So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
> >>>
> >>> Really?
> >>
> >> Yes really. Why do you find that amazing? I had to explain to a cashier
> >> at the grocery store the other day why I buy organic. He said "Is it
> >> really better for you?" he didn't know all the reasons that organic is
> >> better.
> >
> > I'm not convinced it is objectively better, or is enough better to justify
> > the cost. I see it largely as a self-indulgence of well-off people in
> > rich countries. If some hypothetical global law were to be passed that
> > mandated organic agriculture only, there would be famine, and the death
> > toll would probably be in the billions.
>
> I can't disagree with that,
'Organic farming yields as good or better: study
Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:51PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Organic farming can yield up to three times
as much food as conventional farming in developing countries, and holds
its own against standard methods in rich countries, U.S. researchers said
on Tuesday.
They said their findings contradict arguments that organic farming --
which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides -- is not
as efficient as conventional techniques.
"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that
you can't produce enough food through organic agriculture," Ivette
Perfecto, a professor at the University of Michigan's school of Natural
Resources and Environment, said in a statement.
She and colleagues analyzed published studies on yields from organic
farming. They looked at 293 different examples.
"Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough
food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population,
and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the
agricultural land base," they wrote in their report, published in the journal
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce,"
Perfecto said.
"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has
been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the
chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer
companies, all have been playing an important role in convincing the
public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she added.
� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1036065820070710
[The material in this post is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes.For more information go
to: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.]
pearl
And the deaths [inconsideration for lives] of animals raised for food.
> >> > You've failed to support your "cd argument" with credible evidence.
> >>
> >> The argument has been amply supported.
> >
> > Show us:
> > ...........................................................................................
>
> You've seen it many times, Steven Davis being the most obvious example.
Davis' essay doesn't provide "ample support". His estimated figure is
based on a study where the reduction in numbers post-harvest may be
from mortality and/or migration from the field. Nowt but guesstimate.
> Metheny's parsing of the Davis arithmetic does not change the basic
> findings, that agricultural machinery decimates small animal populations.
Explain how the figures, even Davis' un/corrected/ 'findings' say that..
'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as
many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food,
a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to
obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian
would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill
1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-
vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals,
followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
..'
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
A "vegan-vegearian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually". Meaning
that the poor tortured 6-week-old chicken you fed upon last night
would be numerically equal to THREE YEARS of a vegans CDs.
You can be ashamed hurling your tu quoque crap at good people.
> Also the idea itself is self-evident to any honest observer. Even Rupert
> accepts it.
The 'idea' is your scummy self-serving diversion/evasion from the
many *billions* of sentient beings killed for human consumption.
That's what's self-evident to all honest observers, including Rupert.
> The real idea behind veganism is more of an AR/political one, a
> feeling that the farming of animals is an injustice agsinst the animals,
> somewhat like most people think of say, dog fighting.
Well, what's the difference? How is the mutilation of animals, causing
extreme terror, agony and suffering, for your *pleasure* any different?
> >> > Pesticides are recognized as harmful to both humans and non-humans.
> >>
> >> Those two statements are contradictory.
> >
> > You keep banging on about "shredded, sliced, diced, mangled", etc.
>
> That's rick etter. Chemicals are what I say are most damaging,
"agricultural machinery decimates small animal populations" - just above.
> in the case
> of most ground crops, herbicides, with tree crops it's pesticides. There is
> also chemical fertilizer which strips away soil diversity.
Harmful to human beings as well. Yet your own land's saturated.
IOW, your 'support' for organic farming is nothing but lip-service,
just like your 'support' for "welfare" - whatever that means to you
(what _is_ the meaning of 'welfare', dodge?), and you have been
viciously attacking vegans for buying poison produce you grow,
yet have the gall to call other people "sanctimonious hypocrites".
> The Canadian
> prairies are a virtual wasteland because of the *human* crops, not
> livestock feed, not pasture lands, which support the greatest diversity of
> wildlife, and where grazing animals live a nearly natural existence.
'Land use per person in selected countries (1994)
Agricultural Amount as Percent of Farm animal
land (HA) pasture cereal crop to human
per person fed to animals weight ratio
..
Canada 2.51 38% 77% 4.3 to 1
..
[Sources: FAOSTAT Statistics Database," FAO Web Page
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
June 1997); Agricultural Statistics 1997 (Washington, United
States Department of Agriculture, 1997), Table 1-71, p. 8. ]
..
Much of the prairies in central Canada have been lost to agriculture.
Of the four principle ecoregions, less than 24% of mixed prairie,
30% of fescue prairie, 20% of aspen parkland and 1% of tall-grass
prairie remain in a natural, undisturbed state. According to the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the
Black-footed Ferret and Prairie Swift Fox have become extirpated
(extinct within a country) and 14 other prairie species are classified
as endangered or threatened.9
..
Livestock displace natural grazing animals such as deer, antelope,
bighorn sheep and bison. They also displace small animals and
birds dependent on tall grasses for cover and nesting. Encroaching
networks of fences and roads are a further impediment to wildlife.
..
In Canada, fewer animals to feed could free up land for conversion
to wilderness. Wilderness is crucial for biological diversity, wildlife
habitat, preventing soil erosion, climate control, and as a store for
carbon dioxide. Natural ecosystems also clean the air and water of
pollutants.
..'
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html.
> >> > That is one reason why I have continually promoted organic farming.
> >>
> >> So do I, I choose organic whenever I can, and extol its virtues.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes really. Why do you find that amazing? I had to explain to a cashier at
> the grocery store the other day why I buy organic. He said "Is it really
> better for you?" he didn't know all the reasons that organic is better.
What I don't find amazing, is that you "can't argue" with your idol.
pearl
Attacking vegans in general, is to attack each and every vegan person.
> There's a distinction between a personal attack and criticism of a
> philosophy.
Indeed. You can no way do the latter, so concentrate on the former.
> My criticisms are focused on "veganism" and how it affects
> vegans in general, how they think and act towards others.
Projection. Other people are thankfully NOT made in your image.
> There are
> exceptions. When I say a vegan is being a hypocrite, I don't mean that she
> or he has a character deficit, the point I am making is that he is a victim
> of a way of thinking that tends to twist one's perceptions.
How were you a 'hypocrite', 'victim of a way of thinking' or 'twisted
perceptions' when you wrote "Each year billions of animals suffer
horribly only because humans eat meat."? It's just the hellish truth,
and vegans simply don't want to participate in or contribute to that.
Are we done yet?
Dutch
That's good news for the future if its true. Now we just have to wean
farmers off the chemicals. We used to till our land in the off-season, but
the family that does our farm now uses a herbicide to keep weeds down
instead of tilling, tilling promotes loss of nutrients, moisture, and
topsoil itself. So the question becomes, can there be an effective organic
herbicide?
Dutch
>> >> You have a propensity for indulging in personal attacks every time you
>> >> respond to me.
>> >
>> > A moose would also 'have a propensity' for kicking you from
>> > here to beyond in response to your persistant abusive attacks.
>>
>> The analogy is misguided, I'm not attacking any particular moose. To use
>> that analogy, I would have to be criticizing moose behaviour in general,
>> as
>> in saying that they have low intelligence, stumble into the path of cars
>> or
>> something. If a moose was just "being a moose" he would never know or
>> care
>> that I had that opinion of him. It's just a terrible analogy.
>
> Attacking vegans in general, is to attack each and every vegan person.
I am pointing out what I consider to be inherent flaws in a way of thinking.
That is not a "personal attack". Calling someone a liar is a personal
attack. You are the victim of many personal attacks, but I'm not the one
doing it.
>
>> There's a distinction between a personal attack and criticism of a
>> philosophy.
>
> Indeed. You can no way do the latter, so concentrate on the former.
I endeavour to focus on what I see as inherent flaws in ways of thinking,
such as veganism. I also describe the inherent flaws in The Logic of the
Larder or any argument no matter which lifestyle it attempts to support.
>> My criticisms are focused on "veganism" and how it affects
>> vegans in general, how they think and act towards others.
>
> Projection. Other people are thankfully NOT made in your image.
I can glean how people are thinking quite easily by what they say.
>> There are
>> exceptions. When I say a vegan is being a hypocrite, I don't mean that
>> she
>> or he has a character deficit, the point I am making is that he is a
>> victim
>> of a way of thinking that tends to twist one's perceptions.
>
> How were you a 'hypocrite', 'victim of a way of thinking' or 'twisted
> perceptions' when you wrote "Each year billions of animals suffer
> horribly only because humans eat meat."? It's just the hellish truth,
> and vegans simply don't want to participate in or contribute to that.
It was a hypocritical statement because that dichotomy attempts to divide
humanity into two distinct groups, those cause animals to suffer horribly
and those who do not. The truth is that people who eat rice, bananas, bread,
apples, wear cotton shirts or do any number of things cause animals to
suffer horribly. Besides, animals suffer horribly without human
intervention, they freeze, starve, get disease, infections, or are eaten by
other animals. Its part of being an animal. The statement is made primarily
to elevate the speaker onto a moral plateau from which he or she can look
down on others.
> Are we done yet?
I doubt it, unless you have been hit by lightening and can suddenly see what
I am trying to tell you.
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
..
> > Attacking vegans in general, is to attack each and every vegan person.
>
> I am pointing out what I consider to be inherent flaws in a way of thinking.
Such as?
> That is not a "personal attack".
Of course it is. Group X's thinking is inherently flawed
= members of group X have inherently flawed thinking.
> Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.
Justifiably when you're lying about others and relevant issues.
> You are the victim of many personal attacks, but I'm not the one
> doing it.
But you jumped into this thread to support personal attacks.
> >> There's a distinction between a personal attack and criticism of a
> >> philosophy.
> >
> > Indeed. You can no way do the latter, so concentrate on the former.
>
> I endeavour to focus on what I see as inherent flaws in ways of thinking,
> such as veganism.
Another poster got the measure of you very quickly just this week:
"See, it seems to me that you are basing your entire argument on
"assumptions" that simply aren't always true." "See the pattern?
I understand my own personal motivations, and you don't."
> I also describe the inherent flaws in The Logic of the
> Larder
A five-year-old could describe the inherent flaws in the LotL.
> or any argument no matter which lifestyle it attempts to support.
Not impressed in the slightest.
> >> My criticisms are focused on "veganism" and how it affects
> >> vegans in general, how they think and act towards others.
> >
> > Projection. Other people are thankfully NOT made in your image.
>
> I can glean how people are thinking quite easily by what they say.
You can't. Everything you see passes through your own filters.
> >> There are
> >> exceptions. When I say a vegan is being a hypocrite, I don't mean that
> >> she
> >> or he has a character deficit, the point I am making is that he is a
> >> victim
> >> of a way of thinking that tends to twist one's perceptions.
> >
> > How were you a 'hypocrite', 'victim of a way of thinking' or 'twisted
> > perceptions' when you wrote "Each year billions of animals suffer
> > horribly only because humans eat meat."? It's just the hellish truth,
> > and vegans simply don't want to participate in or contribute to that.
>
> It was a hypocritical statement because that dichotomy attempts to divide
> humanity into two distinct groups, those cause animals to suffer horribly
> and those who do not.
Causing billions to suffer horribly only to eat their flesh, or not.
> The truth is that people who eat rice, bananas, bread,
> apples, wear cotton shirts or do any number of things cause animals to
> suffer horribly.
Where's your reply to my third post, dodge?
> Besides, animals suffer horribly without human
> intervention, they freeze, starve, get disease, infections, or are eaten by
> other animals. Its part of being an animal.
Argumentum ad Naturam. N is natural. Therefore, N is right or good.
Humans suffer horribly - they freeze, starve, get disease, infections,
or are murdered by other humans. So does that give us the right
to breed, mutilate, confine and slaughter humans in your opinion?
> The statement is made primarily
> to elevate the speaker onto a moral plateau from which he or she can look
> down on others.
You lack moral integrity and so invent scenarios in order to try
to drag those who do have moral integrity down to your level.
> > Are we done yet?
>
> I doubt it, unless you have been hit by lightening and can suddenly see what
> I am trying to tell you.
Unless you've been hit by lightning and can suddenly see that
your thinking is inherently flawed, sanctimonious hypocrite.
pearl
"If it's true"?
'Organic farming yields as good or better: study
Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:51PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Organic farming can yield up to three times
as much food as conventional farming in developing countries, and holds
its own against standard methods in rich countries, U.S. researchers said
on Tuesday.
They said their findings contradict arguments that organic farming --
which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides -- is not
as efficient as conventional techniques.
"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that
you can't produce enough food through organic agriculture," Ivette
Perfecto, a professor at the University of Michigan's school of Natural
Resources and Environment, said in a statement.
She and colleagues analyzed published studies on yields from organic
farming. They looked at 293 different examples.
"Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough
food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population,
and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the
agricultural land base," they wrote in their report, published in the journal
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce,"
Perfecto said.
"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has
been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the
chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer
companies, all have been playing an important role in convincing the
public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she added.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1036065820070710
> Now we just have to wean
> farmers off the chemicals. We used to till our land in the off-season, but
> the family that does our farm now uses a herbicide to keep weeds down
> instead of tilling, tilling promotes loss of nutrients, moisture, and
> topsoil itself. So the question becomes, can there be an effective organic
> herbicide?
Principles of Sustainable Weed Management for Croplands
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/weed.html
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:pg8Fk.7913$i84....@newsfe10.iad...
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> ..
>> > Attacking vegans in general, is to attack each and every vegan person.
>>
>> I am pointing out what I consider to be inherent flaws in a way of
>> thinking.
>
> Such as?
Did you just get here?
>> That is not a "personal attack".
>
> Of course it is. Group X's thinking is inherently flawed
> = members of group X have inherently flawed thinking.
Of course it is not. We are not prohibited by rules of fair debate from
criticizing "a way of thinking" because some people subscribe to it.
>> Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.
>
> Justifiably when you're lying about others and relevant issues.
Don't get defensive, that was just an illustration.
>> You are the victim of many personal attacks, but I'm not the one
>> doing it.
>
> But you jumped into this thread to support personal attacks.
I jumped in to point out that you're the pot calling the kettle black.
>> >> There's a distinction between a personal attack and criticism of a
>> >> philosophy.
>> >
>> > Indeed. You can no way do the latter, so concentrate on the former.
>>
>> I endeavour to focus on what I see as inherent flaws in ways of thinking,
>> such as veganism.
>
> Another poster got the measure of you very quickly just this week:
> "See, it seems to me that you are basing your entire argument on
> "assumptions" that simply aren't always true." "See the pattern?
> I understand my own personal motivations, and you don't."
I never said they were always true.
>> I also describe the inherent flaws in The Logic of the
>> Larder
>
> A five-year-old could describe the inherent flaws in the LotL.
I don't think so.
>> or any argument no matter which lifestyle it attempts to support.
>
> Not impressed in the slightest.
I am not trying to impress you.
>> >> My criticisms are focused on "veganism" and how it affects
>> >> vegans in general, how they think and act towards others.
>> >
>> > Projection. Other people are thankfully NOT made in your image.
>>
>> I can glean how people are thinking quite easily by what they say.
>
> You can't. Everything you see passes through your own filters.
My filters help me.
>> >> There are
>> >> exceptions. When I say a vegan is being a hypocrite, I don't mean that
>> >> she
>> >> or he has a character deficit, the point I am making is that he is a
>> >> victim
>> >> of a way of thinking that tends to twist one's perceptions.
>> >
>> > How were you a 'hypocrite', 'victim of a way of thinking' or 'twisted
>> > perceptions' when you wrote "Each year billions of animals suffer
>> > horribly only because humans eat meat."? It's just the hellish truth,
>> > and vegans simply don't want to participate in or contribute to that.
>>
>> It was a hypocritical statement because that dichotomy attempts to divide
>> humanity into two distinct groups, those cause animals to suffer horribly
>> and those who do not.
>
> Causing billions to suffer horribly only to eat their flesh, or not.
Eating the flesh of a cow does not hurt them any more than eating the flesh
of a pear hurts a pear. You are engaging in emotional manipulation.
>> The truth is that people who eat rice, bananas, bread,
>> apples, wear cotton shirts or do any number of things cause animals to
>> suffer horribly.
>
> Where's your reply to my third post, dodge?
There's that hypocrisy I have been talking about.
>
>> Besides, animals suffer horribly without human
>> intervention, they freeze, starve, get disease, infections, or are eaten
>> by
>> other animals. Its part of being an animal.
>
> Argumentum ad Naturam. N is natural. Therefore, N is right or good.
Not at all, it's simply natural.
> Humans suffer horribly - they freeze, starve, get disease, infections,
> or are murdered by other humans. So does that give us the right
> to breed, mutilate, confine and slaughter humans in your opinion?
No.
>> The statement is made primarily
>> to elevate the speaker onto a moral plateau from which he or she can look
>> down on others.
>
> You lack moral integrity and so invent scenarios in order to try
> to drag those who do have moral integrity down to your level.
As much as you may need to put me there, I am not at a "low moral level".
>> > Are we done yet?
>>
>> I doubt it, unless you have been hit by lightening and can suddenly see
>> what
>> I am trying to tell you.
>
> Unless you've been hit by lightning and can suddenly see that
> your thinking is inherently flawed, sanctimonious hypocrite.
I don't think my diet makes me a moral paragon, I don't think yours does.
There's no sanctimony in my way of thinking.
Dutch
Yes, unlike you, I am aware that a study does not make something a fact.
Science replies on MANY studies, which frequently contradict one other.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:14:01 +0100, "pearl" lied:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:18:52 +0100, "pearl"<t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoreau on the moose
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures.
>>>>>> Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Theroux
>>>>>> September 14, 2008
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's
>>>>>> enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of
>>>>>> marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting in a most pathetic way that the people who are critical
>>>>> of moose hunting are also often the same people who would re-introduce
>>>>> wolves which can have catastrophic influence on moose populations. They
>>>>> do that of course by chasing terrified young and baby moose to the point
>>>>> of exhaustion, then strangling them to death with their jaws as their
>>>>> fellows begin to rip them apart and devour them while the young victims
>>>>> are still alive and conscious.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting in a pathetic way that this dh@ engages in cockfighting.
>>>
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Of course that's another blatant lie
It isn't.
>>> Dare you tell the truth? LOL...of course you
>>> dare not...lol...
>
> certainly continued with the Team Eliminationist lying.
No.
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs