Is Benfez Jonathan Ball?

ipse dixit

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 1:12:49 PM4/30/04

to

Benfez has recently reappeared, or so it seems, but
denies making certain quotes concerning Salt's
essay, Logic of the larder. His quotes tell us he
lied;

"I have just read Mr Salt's work and find it to be flawed."
Benfez 2004-01-08

But he claims to have read it back in 2001

"You are lying: http://tinyurl.com/36hlm That
(January 2001) is well before you ever showed
your pigheaded self here. I read it then"
Benfez 2004-04-29

After being found out by these quotes, he now claims
there must be two people posting under the same name;

"That was not I. I wouldn't have thought there would
be another poster named Benfez"

Looking at his and Jonathan's headers, he might be
right;

From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Initial existence is NOT a benefit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <g1YLb.3184$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:04:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.68.157
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1073761484 68.164.68.157 (Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:44 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:44 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

From: Benfez <pricker...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: publius@notareal_ISP.not
Organization: ax9...@ntlworld.slater.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Further refutation of the "logic of the larder"
Message-ID: <smukc.276$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:34:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.165.22.237
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1083339288 68.165.22.237 (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:34:48 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:34:48 PDT
Xref: sn-us talk.politics.animals:314669 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:151988

Also, take a look at Benfez's "organization": Organization: ax9...@ntlworld.slater.com

It's Jonathan Ball posing as an old poster here, or
Benfez always was Jonathan to begin with.

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 1:24:59 PM4/30/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message
news:1815901dd6tr2ns9r...@4ax.com...

> Benfez has recently reappeared, or so it seems, but
> denies making certain quotes concerning Salt's
> essay, Logic of the larder. His quotes tell us he
> lied;

[...snip...]

> It's Jonathan Ball posing as an old poster here, or
> Benfez always was Jonathan to begin with.

I thought it was jb right from the first couple posts. There
are too many stylistic similarities and use of pet phrases. If
Benfez is jb, then he's been much better behaved and this
incarnation is a welcome improvement.

ipse dixit

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 1:49:46 PM4/30/04

to

I noted that both make the same claim in that they
independently arrived at Salt's conclusion before
reading his essay.

"I accept his analysis, and in fact independently arrive
at it before I had even read Salt's essay."
Benfez 2004-04-29

"I'd like to point out that I articulated the thought entirely
independently, before I had ever heard of Salt or anyone
else who says the same thing"
Jonathan Ball 2004-01-10

"I arrived at the same conclusion independently, without
ever having heard of Salt."
Jonathan Ball 2004-02-20

But why would Jon invent someone just to knock this bogus
person out of the ring later by stating things like?

"I think any reference to the stupid argument should
have "fuckwit" and "David Harrison" in it. FUCKWIT
is the only idiot who believes it. Benfez thought he
believed it for a while, and that crippled shitworm
Dreck was cackling with glee over it, but the guy
abandoned it when the illogic of it was explained to
him. FUCKWIT is all alone, again."
Jonathan Ball 2004-02-02

That's just so sad.

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:00:55 PM4/30/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message

news:0535901bmp42c6d2q...@4ax.com...

It is very sad. I'm guessing that he can't stay away. He's
addicted to participation in aaev and/or tpa. But he's under
legal counsel to avoid participation for now, so he's caught
in a quandary, a quandary that he's trying to resolve by
participating anonymously. He was either playing a game
under the Benfez name originally and now found it a
convenient pseudonym or he wasn't but now found it
useful to co-opt that name as a way of deflecting suspicion.

ipse dixit

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:15:45 PM4/30/04

to

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:00:55 -0400, "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message news:0535901bmp42c6d2q...@4ax.com...

I must admit I was fooled for a long while. Looking at the
threads in Google, Jon's had some very lengthy discussions
with himself, and called himself every name under the sun
while doing it too. Is there a shrink in the house!?

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:32:48 PM4/30/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

What's sad about it?

>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.

You're wrong, again.

>>He's addicted to participation in aaev and/or tpa.

And AGAIN.

>>But he's under
>>legal counsel to avoid participation for now,

Hat trick, Sophist Boob. I haven't spoken with any
lawyer about anything.

>>so he's caught
>>in a quandary, a quandary that he's trying to resolve by
>>participating anonymously. He was either playing a game
>>under the Benfez name originally

Nope. The posts by Benfez last January are authentic.
I did not write them or have anything to do with
their creation. They're entirely legit, at least as
far as being by a different person unknown to me.
Whether or not he really held the opinions he initially
showed, and then changed his mind due to my responses,
is unknowable. I believe his change of thinking is
genuine.

>>and now found it a
>>convenient pseudonym or he wasn't but now found it
>>useful to co-opt that name as a way of deflecting suspicion.

I just thought it a good name.

>
>
> I must admit I was fooled for a long while.

Oh, yes!

> Looking at the
> threads in Google, Jon's had some very lengthy discussions
> with himself,

Nope. That original Benfez is a different and real
person. I didn't write those. Check the headers.

> and called himself every name under the sun
> while doing it too.

No, I didn't.

> Is there a shrink in the house!?

It wouldn't matter, Dreck. You're untreatable. No
ethical psychologist or psychiatrist would even try
with you.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:43:49 PM4/30/04

to

farrell77 wrote:

Silly opinion.

> I'm guessing that he can't stay away.

Wrong.

> He's addicted to participation in aaev and/or tpa.

Wrong.

> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,

Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.

> so he's caught
> in a quandary, a quandary that he's trying to resolve by
> participating anonymously.

Trying for a errors-in-a-single-post scoring record,
Boob?

> He was either playing a game
> under the Benfez name originally and now found it a
> convenient pseudonym or he wasn't but now found it
> useful to co-opt that name as a way of deflecting suspicion.

Are you sure that's an exhaustive list of available
chioces, Boob?

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:49:18 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:F7xkc.549$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Prove it. Stay away for a month.

> > He's addicted to participation in aaev and/or tpa.
>
> Wrong.

Prove it. Stay away for a month.

> > But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>
> Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.

Well, I did say it was a guess.

> > so he's caught
> > in a quandary, a quandary that he's trying to resolve by
> > participating anonymously.
>
> Trying for a errors-in-a-single-post scoring record,
> Boob?

I could never match your record.

> > He was either playing a game
> > under the Benfez name originally and now found it a
> > convenient pseudonym or he wasn't but now found it
> > useful to co-opt that name as a way of deflecting suspicion.
>
> Are you sure that's an exhaustive list of available
> chioces, Boob?

No doubt, there are others.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 2:55:31 PM4/30/04

to

What would that prove? Don't be an even bigger dope
than you already are, Boob.

>
>
>
>>>He's addicted to participation in aaev and/or tpa.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>
> Prove it. Stay away for a month.

Same.

>
>
>
>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>
>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>
>
> Well, I did say it was a guess.

Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
some synonym. You stated it flatly:

But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation

for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary

that he's trying to resolve by participating
anonymously.

The word "guess" does not appear there, nor any synonym
for it, nor any oblique phrasing that suggests you're
only guessing. Why did you now stupidly lie and claim
you said it was a guess? Admit you lied: you did not
say, hint or suggest it was a guess.

>
>
>
>>>so he's caught
>>>in a quandary, a quandary that he's trying to resolve by
>>>participating anonymously.
>>
>>Trying for a errors-in-a-single-post scoring record,
>>Boob?
>
>
> I could never match your record.

I don't hold any such record, Boob.

>
>
>
>>>He was either playing a game
>>>under the Benfez name originally and now found it a
>>>convenient pseudonym or he wasn't but now found it
>>>useful to co-opt that name as a way of deflecting suspicion.
>>
>>Are you sure that's an exhaustive list of available
>>chioces, Boob?
>
>
> No doubt, there are others.

Just say "no", Boob. You would do better if you would
learn to speak less obliquely. Say, "no, it is not
exhaustive".

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 3:21:57 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[...]

> >>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
> >>
> >>Wrong.
> >
> >
> > Prove it. Stay away for a month.
>

> What would that prove? ..

That you can stay away. Obviously.

[...]

> >>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
> >>
> >>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
> >
> >
> > Well, I did say it was a guess.
>
> Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
> some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>
> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
> that he's trying to resolve by participating
> anonymously.

You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.

> The word "guess" does not appear there, nor any synonym
> for it, nor any oblique phrasing that suggests you're
> only guessing. Why did you now stupidly lie and claim
> you said it was a guess? Admit you lied: you did not
> say, hint or suggest it was a guess.

Incorrect. The second sentence in the paragraph
said it was a guess. That applied to the whole
paragraph. It certainly meets your "hint" criterion,
at the least. If you stopped splitting up the paragraphs
of others without indicating it, maybe you wouldn't
get so confused like this.

[...]

Ray

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 3:44:49 PM4/30/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Avwkc.59$dR2....@news.uswest.net...

Litigation my arse, the little shit is on another ego trip. I'm willing to
bet that Benez is 4'-6" tall with a severe mental problem and a wife who
beats him.

>
>

Ray

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 3:52:40 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:kZwkc.531$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Out on bail ~~jonnie~~ or have you escaped?
>

Ray

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 3:55:33 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:F7xkc.549$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Hope it's not going to be one post a minute ~~jonnie~~
>

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 4:48:55 PM4/30/04

to

farrell77 wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Prove it. Stay away for a month.
>>
>>What would that prove? ..
>
>
> That you can stay away. Obviously.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>>>
>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
>>
>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>>
>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
>> anonymously.
>
>
> You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.

I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
you slimy liar.

>
>
>
>>The word "guess" does not appear there, nor any synonym
>>for it, nor any oblique phrasing that suggests you're
>>only guessing. Why did you now stupidly lie and claim
>>you said it was a guess? Admit you lied: you did not
>>say, hint or suggest it was a guess.
>
>
> Incorrect. The second sentence in the paragraph
> said it was a guess. That applied to the whole
> paragraph.

No, slimy lying Sophist Boob. Forget it. Even you
can't make that nugget stop smelling.

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:02:41 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:XYykc.750$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> farrell77 wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>>>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Prove it. Stay away for a month.
> >>
> >>What would that prove? ..
> >
> >
> > That you can stay away. Obviously.

Do it, jon. Stay away for a month.

> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
> >>>>
> >>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
> >>
> >>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
> >>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
> >>
> >> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
> >> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
> >> that he's trying to resolve by participating
> >> anonymously.
> >
> >
> > You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
>
> I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
> said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
> the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
> you slimy liar.

It was at the top of the same paragraph. That satisfies your
request for a hint, at the very least, that further statements
in that SAME paragraph were all part of the guess.
Obviously. There were statements that I couldn't have known
for certain. It was speculation, jon, and marked clearly
enough so that you knew that. You're just trying to waste
my time.

[...]

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:10:23 PM4/30/04

to

farrell77 wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:XYykc.750$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>farrell77 wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Prove it. Stay away for a month.
>>>>
>>>>What would that prove? ..
>>>
>>>
>>>That you can stay away. Obviously.
>
>
> Do it, jon. Stay away for a month.

I don't take orders, or even suggestions, from lying
slimy sophists.

I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
Oh, wait...you don't "do" substance do you? You only
snipe on peripheral bullshit. How could I forget?

>
>
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>>>>
>>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
>>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
>>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
>>>> anonymously.
>>>
>>>
>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
>>
>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
>>you slimy liar.
>
>
> It was at the top of the same paragraph.

It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
sentence.

Don't even bother any more, liar.

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:24:55 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:3hzkc.772$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> farrell77 wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:XYykc.750$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>farrell77 wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >>>news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Prove it. Stay away for a month.
> >>>>
> >>>>What would that prove? ..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That you can stay away. Obviously.
> >
> >
> > Do it, jon. Stay away for a month.
>
> I don't take orders, or even suggestions, from lying
> slimy sophists.

That doesn't apply here. I thought you were interested
in proving your claim. I guess not after all, addict.

> I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
> Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
> all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
> illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.

I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
isn't unreasonable. Is it true? I don't know. But it's
not unreasonable to think it is.

[...]

> >>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
> >>>>
> >>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
> >>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
> >>>>
> >>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
> >>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
> >>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
> >>>> anonymously.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
> >>
> >>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
> >>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
> >>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
> >>you slimy liar.
> >
> >
> > It was at the top of the same paragraph.
>
> It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
> INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
> sentence.

There's no way you could know that. In fact, if it had
not been part of the guess, I would have started a new
paragraph. And at the very least, it does satisfy your
request for a hint that the claims were guesses.

You don't have a case, jon. It's incredible that you're
still arguing a hopeless point.

[...]

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:29:22 PM4/30/04

to

farrell77 wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3hzkc.772$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>farrell77 wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:XYykc.750$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>farrell77 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Dixkc.595$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm guessing that he can't stay away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Prove it. Stay away for a month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would that prove? ..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That you can stay away. Obviously.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do it, jon. Stay away for a month.
>>
>>I don't take orders, or even suggestions, from lying
>>slimy sophists.
>
>
> That doesn't apply here.

It does.

>
>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>
>
> I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
> isn't unreasonable.

It is unreasonable, and absurd. Is he going to count
the number of meat eaters, then get statements from 50%
plus 1? Don't be an even bigger idiot, lightweight.

> Is it true? I don't know.

You do know, lightweight. You know it's crap.

> But it's
> not unreasonable to think it is.

It is very unreasonable to think it is. You know it's
absurd on its face.

Always the fluffy crap from you, right Boob? "not
unreasonable"...why can you just right "it's
reasonable". Too much of a worm, that's why.

>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
>>>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
>>>>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
>>>>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
>>>>>> anonymously.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
>>>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
>>>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
>>>>you slimy liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>It was at the top of the same paragraph.
>>
>>It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
>>INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
>>sentence.
>
>
> There's no way you could know that.

We all know it, slimy lying sophist.

Why do you keep proving my point about your lack of
substance, Boob?

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:50:56 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:Syzkc.790$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> farrell77 wrote:

[...]

> >>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
> >>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
> >>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
> >>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
> >
> >
> > I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
> > isn't unreasonable.
>
> It is unreasonable, and absurd. Is he going to count
> the number of meat eaters, then get statements from 50%
> plus 1? Don't be an even bigger idiot, lightweight.
>
> > Is it true? I don't know.
>
> You do know, lightweight. You know it's crap.

You don't know what I know, so stop lying about it.
His proposition is not an unreasonable one.

> >>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
> >>>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
> >>>>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
> >>>>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
> >>>>>> anonymously.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
> >>>>
> >>>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
> >>>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
> >>>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
> >>>>you slimy liar.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It was at the top of the same paragraph.
> >>
> >>It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
> >>INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
> >>sentence.
> >
> >
> > There's no way you could know that.
>
> We all know it, slimy lying sophist.

You don't know it, and you don't speak for anyone
but yourself.

[...]

ipse dixit

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 5:57:17 PM4/30/04

to

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:10:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:

>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.

"We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was
clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it
two thousand years hence."
Logic of the larder by Henry S Salt.

He was dead right about that.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:03:55 PM4/30/04

to

Insubstantial lightweight Sophist Boob Black wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:Syzkc.790$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>

>>Insubstantial lightweight Sophist Boob Black wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
>>>isn't unreasonable.
>>
>>It is unreasonable, and absurd. Is he going to count
>>the number of meat eaters, then get statements from 50%
>>plus 1? Don't be an even bigger idiot, lightweight.
>>
>>
>>>Is it true? I don't know.
>>
>>You do know, lightweight. You know it's crap.
>
>
> You don't know what I know, so stop lying about it.

I do know some things that you know, Boobie, and this
is one of them.

> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.

Still can't be direct, can you, Boobie, you little worm?

His proposition is eminently unreasonable, and you KNOW
it, Boobie.

>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
>>>>>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
>>>>>>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
>>>>>>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
>>>>>>>> anonymously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
>>>>>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
>>>>>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
>>>>>>you slimy liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It was at the top of the same paragraph.
>>>>
>>>>It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
>>>>INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
>>>>sentence.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's no way you could know that.
>>
>>We all know it, slimy lying sophist.
>
>
> You don't know it

We do know it, insubstantial lightweight.

Talk about inability to control oneself...you just
can't let drop a bad thread in which you're exposing
your lack of substance.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:11:09 PM4/30/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

You are dead wrong about the numbers, Dreck. Your
claim, even with your latest fuckwitted revision to the
percentage, is wrong. You have TWO measly quotes. On
the opposite side we have between half a dozen and a
dozen opponents of AR who have told Fuckwit that his
"getting to experience life" crapola is illogical
nonsense. Martin Martens, Ward Clark, Woody Williams,
John Mercer (I think), Swamp, Dutch, me, and by
implication Benfez (based on his explicit rejection of
the illogic, once it was pointed out to him.) I am
certain there are about that many again, whose names
escape me. I don't care if there are or aren't:
clearly, NOT all meat eaters believe it, and of the
sample of opinions we've seen, the sentiment is better
than two to one for my position.

It's pretty obvious that Henry Salt himself had no idea
how many people, if any, actually held the belief in
his day. In fact, as far as anyone can reasonably see,
he was battling a strawman: he doesn't identify ANY
real person who held the position.

ipse dixit

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:12:08 PM4/30/04

to

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:29:22 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>farrell77 wrote:
>> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3hzkc.772$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[..]

>>
>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>>
>> I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
>> isn't unreasonable.
>
>It is unreasonable, and absurd.

Not at all. Most meat eaters and fur wearers try
to justify their diet and fashion by using logic similar
to which Salt refutes.

[Logic of the Larder
It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of
animals, that it is better for them to live and to be
butchered than not to live at all.
.......
The argument is frequently used by sportsmen, on
the ground that the fox would long ago have become
extinct in this country had not they, his true friends, .
preserved. him for purposes of sport. Vivisectors,
who breed guinea-pigs for experimentation, also
have used it, and they have as much right to it as
flesh-eaters; for how, they may say, can a few
hours of suffering be set in the balance against the
enormous benefit of life?
.......

We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was
clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It
is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two
thousand years hence.

HENRY S. SALT]
http://tinyurl.com/3dxkh

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:14:48 PM4/30/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:29:22 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>>farrell77 wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3hzkc.772$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> [..]
>
>>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>>>
>>>I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
>>>isn't unreasonable.
>>
>>It is unreasonable, and absurd.
>
>
> Not at all.

At all. You can't demonstrate that most meat eaters
and fur wearers employ the faulty logic.

farrell77

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:15:55 PM4/30/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:f3Akc.824$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[...]

> >>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
> >>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
> >>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
> >>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
> >>>isn't unreasonable.
> >>
> >>It is unreasonable, and absurd. Is he going to count
> >>the number of meat eaters, then get statements from 50%
> >>plus 1? Don't be an even bigger idiot, lightweight.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Is it true? I don't know.
> >>
> >>You do know, lightweight. You know it's crap.
> >
> >
> > You don't know what I know, so stop lying about it.
>
> I do know some things that you know, Boobie, and this
> is one of them.

A completely unsupported assertion on your part.

> > His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>
> Still can't be direct, can you, Boobie, you little worm?

It's a valid statement subtlely nuanced to contain the utmost
accuracy.

The fact that it irritates you is a beneficial side effect.

[...]

> >>>>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
> >>>>>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
> >>>>>>>> for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
> >>>>>>>> that he's trying to resolve by participating
> >>>>>>>> anonymously.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
> >>>>>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
> >>>>>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
> >>>>>>you slimy liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It was at the top of the same paragraph.
> >>>>
> >>>>It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
> >>>>INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
> >>>>sentence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There's no way you could know that.
> >>
> >>We all know it, slimy lying sophist.
> >
> >
> > You don't know it
>
> We do know it, insubstantial lightweight.
>

> Talk about inability to control oneself... ...

Yes, let's talk about that. What IS your problem
in this area? Why can't you become an honest man?

> ... you just
> can't let drop a bad thread ...

Thank yourself for the badness of the thread. I'm just
here to help you understand your wayward ways and to
offer you in a small but friendly way some badly needed
help. Regretfully, I have to leave shortly though.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Apr 30, 2004, 6:32:01 PM4/30/04

to

Insubstantial lightweight Sophist Boob Black wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:f3Akc.824$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>

>> Insubstantial lightweight Sophist Boob Black wrote:
>>

>>> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

>>> news:Syzkc.790$Hs1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> Insubstantial lightweight Sophist Boob Black wrote:
>
>

>>>>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>>>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>>>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>>>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I saw that he's adjusted it to most (50%+1), which
>>>>>isn't unreasonable.
>>>>
>>>>It is unreasonable, and absurd. Is he going to count
>>>>the number of meat eaters, then get statements from 50%
>>>>plus 1? Don't be an even bigger idiot, lightweight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is it true? I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>You do know, lightweight. You know it's crap.
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't know what I know, so stop lying about it.
>>
>>I do know some things that you know, Boobie, and this
>>is one of them.
>
>
> A completely unsupported assertion on your part.

More fluff, boobie. False to boot.

You know that Dreck's stupid revision is just as
unsupportable as his initial stupid claim. You KNOW
this, boobie, and you know that we know it.

>
>
>
>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>>
>>Still can't be direct, can you, Boobie, you little worm?
>
>
> It's a valid statement subtlely nuanced to contain the utmost
> accuracy.

Why can't you just say "it's reasonable", Boobie? It's
rank sophistry, which is all you do: rank,
insubstantial sophistry.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation for now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hat trick, Boob: wrong for the third time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, I did say it was a guess.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Liar. You didn't say it was a guess, nor did you use
>>>>>>>>>>some synonym. You stated it flatly:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But he's under legal counsel to avoid participation
>>>>>>>>>>for now, so he's caught in a quandary, a quandary
>>>>>>>>>>that he's trying to resolve by participating
>>>>>>>>>>anonymously.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You removed the context, jonnie. That's dishonest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't remove any context, lying Sophist Boob. You
>>>>>>>>said you were guessing I couldn't stay away. That's
>>>>>>>>the limit of the word "guessing", lying Sophist Boob,
>>>>>>>>you slimy liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was at the top of the same paragraph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It didn't apply to the entire paragraph, lying slimy
>>>>>>INSUBSTANTIAL sophist. It was limited to that one
>>>>>>sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no way you could know that.
>>>>
>>>>We all know it, slimy lying sophist.
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't know it
>>
>>We do know it, insubstantial lightweight.
>>
>>Talk about inability to control oneself... ...
>
>
> Yes, let's talk about that.

Yes, let's: why can't you STOP posting your
insubstantial quibbling and parsing, boobie?

>
>
>
>>... you just
>>can't let drop a bad thread ...
>
>
> Thank yourself for the badness of the thread.

I blame you and Dreck. I certainly don't thank anyone
for writing shit.

Dutch

unread,

May 1, 2004, 2:58:48 AM5/1/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote

> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.

Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The Logic
of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that basis
alone, 50% is way out of line.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 1, 2004, 5:54:30 AM5/1/04

to

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:11:09 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:10:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a polite request to you though, slimy Sophist
>>>Boob: please tell Dreck that his stupid claim, that
>>>all meat eaters subscribe to Fuckwit Harrison's
>>>illogical nonsense, is an absurd and unprovable claim.
>>
>> "We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was
>> clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>> It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it
>> two thousand years hence."
>> Logic of the larder by Henry S Salt.
>>
>> He was dead right about that.
>
>You are dead wrong about the numbers, Dreck.

I don't think I am. It's a fair estimate.

>Your
>claim, even with your latest fuckwitted revision to the
>percentage, is wrong.

I'm fairly certain it's correct.

>You have TWO measly quotes.

I've provided many more than just two. We both
know that.

>On
>the opposite side we have between half a dozen and a
>dozen opponents of AR who have told Fuckwit that his
>"getting to experience life" crapola is illogical
>nonsense. Martin Martens, Ward Clark, Woody Williams,
>John Mercer (I think), Swamp, Dutch, me,

Are you suggesting those represent a reliable sample?

>and by
>implication Benfez (based on his explicit rejection of
>the illogic, once it was pointed out to him.)

I'd drop "Benfez" if I were you, you twisted idiot.
What's got into you? Go look at the threads in
Google between you and that sock puppet you
bashed around for all those months and tell me
why you needed to do it, especially when there's
so many 'deserving' idiots out there just ripe for
the 'taking'? I know you: you like a good scrap
with someone who can go some of the distance.
I can understand that, but what did you get out
of taking on "Benfez"? You're giving me the
creeps, Jon.

>It's pretty obvious that Henry Salt himself had no idea
>how many people, if any, actually held the belief in
>his day.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 1, 2004, 2:50:51 PM5/1/04

to

It won't be the last. Your "estimate" is nothing of
thing; it's simply a lie.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 1, 2004, 2:51:36 PM5/1/04

to

Dreck Nash lied:

> Your argument

No one has advanced the argument. You lied.

Dutch

unread,

May 1, 2004, 3:30:54 PM5/1/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote

> On Sat, 01 May 2004 18:16:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
wrote:

> >>>At all. You can't demonstrate that most meat eaters

> >>>and fur wearers employ the faulty logic.
> >>
> >> It's a fair estimate
> >
> >It's bullshit, from start to finish, and you knew it
> >when you wrote it.
>
> It's a fair estimate

Fair to whom? Not to the truth, because a poll of those who have expressed
opinions disproves it.

> which I think explains society's
> moral view of animals accurately.

But your thinking is well known to be unreliable, so to be on the safe side
we probably should as a rule begin by presuming to be true the opposite of
what you think.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 1, 2004, 3:52:22 PM5/1/04

to

Keep snipping and running, squirt. It's all you're
capable of anyway.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 1, 2004, 3:51:07 PM5/1/04

to

Snipping your opponent's argument away only shows
you can't deal with it.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 2, 2004, 7:42:01 PM5/2/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

You didn't give an "estimate", you gave a fabrication.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 2, 2004, 8:34:16 PM5/2/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

> On Sat, 01 May 2004 18:51:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>Dreck Nash lied:
>>
>>
>>>Your argument
>>
>>No one has advanced the argument. You lied.
>
>

No one advanced the argument; you lied and fabricated.

screedmonkey1

unread,

May 2, 2004, 10:36:28 PM5/2/04

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:

actually, its more accurate to see that they fund the elf terrorists, al as
well.

dh...@nomail.com

unread,

May 8, 2004, 11:56:24 AM5/8/04

to

On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:22:28 +0100, ipse dixit <f...@chance.com> wrote:

>On 5 May 2004 23:32:39 -0700, pricker...@yahoo.com (Auntie Nettles) wrote:
>
>>Hello, k00kologists -- may I direct your attention to the following
>>crossposted newsgroups, where you will see for yourselves a rather sad
>>state of affairs. :-( ...To wit, a Usenet self-mutilation of sorts:
>> k00ky posters inventing sockpuppet personas so they can beat
>>themselves up with their other sockpuppet personas. Among other
>>things.
>
>Apart from his laughable attempts to invent sock
>puppets, only to beat up on them and then claim a
>hollow victory, Jonathan often changes his name
>in an effort to hide his thoughts and behaviour from
>his very young son who might one day look through
>Google archives when he grows up. When warned
>that his son will one day get to know his true father,
>he responded, yet again under a different name;
>sil...@onairos.com ;
>
>"Predictions:
>
>1. There will be no Google as we know it.
>2. I will have gone through a few dozen e-mail
> addresses by then. There are other people
> with my name who post to usenet.
>3. It will never occur to him to look to see if I
> ever posted to Usenet. He won't care."
>Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/3ecox
>
>It's clear that he wants to conceal his true self from
>his own son,

That's interesting. So the Gonad is ashamed--not
proud--of his childish, dishonest, inconsiderate, stupid
self. Hmmm....I had thought he was proud of it because
his father was that way before him, and taught him to
be that way as he will teach his own son to be that way.
Actually, I still believe that's the way it is, and the Gonad
is lying as always when he pretends not to be proud of
his disgusting behavior....in fact I believe there is some
chance he gets paid something by "ARAs" for the
characters that he plays.

>yet over the years he has hypocritically
>attacked Karen Winter for concealing her true self
>from her son, and claims that he is morally obligated
>to convey her posts to him, thereby revealing her true
>character;
>
>"This much is clear: you are terribly afraid of your
>son's reaction if he sees your words. It is YOUR
>words you don't want your son to see, not anything
>I might say about them."
>Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/36h6l
>
>"You are withholding important information from
>your son. That is immoral. It is not immoral for
>me to convey what I know to your son."
>Jonathan Ball http://tinyurl.com/2ygbn
>
>Jonathan is one screwed up little hypocrite who
>1) can't defeat real opponents
>2) uses his opponent's identities to forge damaging
> posts to undermine them
>3) uses multiple names and email addresses to hide
> his true self from his son while attacking others
> who try to conceal their posts from their son.
>
>He's completely and utterly unethical.

We certainly agree on that completely. Humorous
in a pathetic sort of way that the most unethical scum
in the ngs, feels that he is a great authority on ethical
behavior and people should respect that authority. LOL!

dh...@nomail.com

unread,

May 9, 2004, 1:03:18 PM5/9/04

to

This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.

dh...@nomail.com

unread,

May 10, 2004, 7:27:47 AM5/10/04

to

On Sun, 9 May 2004 13:19:08 -0400, "Laurie" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:7l0q90h9nmpbqcajv...@4ax.com...
>> >He's [noBalls] completely and utterly unethical.

>>
>> We certainly agree on that completely. Humorous
>> in a pathetic sort of way that the most unethical scum
>> in the ngs, feels that he is a great authority on ethical
>> behavior and people should respect that authority. LOL!

> Similarly, dh_ld claims great authority on the metaphysical/spiritual
>aspects of domestic animals' well-being and "experience" to make nonsensical
>claims about the "benefits" of domestic animals being abused by farming
>techniques while expecting people should respect his propaganda, even though
>he can provide NO support for his claims when challenged!
>
> Laurie

Explain why a breeder cow living in open pasture, doesn't
benefit more than a battery hen.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 10, 2004, 3:52:29 PM5/10/04

to

dh...@nomail.com wrote:

>
> Explain why a breeder cow living in open pasture, doesn't
> benefit more than a battery hen.

NEITHER animal "benfits" from life itself. IF a
breeder cow and a battery hen are born, it would appear
to some humans that the cow has a more pleasant
existence than the hen, but we really don't know. To
say that the cow has a better existence than the hen is
NOT thinking of it from "the animals' point of view";
it is thinking of it from OUR point of view, and
imagining which life we would like if we had to choose
one of them.

NEITHER animal "benefits" from being born in the first
place. An animal might conceivably benefit from a
particular form of treatment, IF it is born in the
first place; being conceived and born is not a benefit.

farrell77

unread,

May 14, 2004, 3:44:10 PM5/14/04

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1096ilc...@news.supernews.com...

It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
(I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example). Also a utilitarian
argument can be made for it and a lot of people are utilitarians.
That's why I say the proposition is not unreasonable. Is it actually
supported by a majority of meat eaters? I don't know. I'm just
saying it may be.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 14, 2004, 3:54:11 PM5/14/04

to

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:44:10 -0400, "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:1096ilc...@news.supernews.com...
>> "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>>
>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The Logic
>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that basis
>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
>
>It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
>(I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).

"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as
David says,* in exchange for the use of their hides.
We give them life. They give us their lives, and
our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
which I believe includes treating them with respect."
Dutch 2001-01-19 *my edit*

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."
Dutch 2001-01-21

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:01:49 PM5/14/04

to

Sophist Boob, liar ordinaire, wrote:
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1096ilc...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>>
>>Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The Logic
>>of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>>supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
>>were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that basis
>>alone, 50% is way out of line.
>
>
> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).

He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry
to try to hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply
FABRICATED his number. It was not an "estimate" in any
way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat eaters, and
you know it.

He originally said "all", with obviously ZERO support
for an obviously wrong conclusion. He then, employing
no estimating methodology whatever, pulled "50% + 1"
out of his - or is it your? - asshole.

Admit, Boob, you fucking cocksucker: there is no basis
for it AT ALL, except for that self-crippled
dole-cheating dog-beating shitbag Dreck's juvenile wish
to tie his opponents to ONE idiot's stupid story.

Just ONCE, Boob, stop making an ass of yourself.

> Also a utilitarian
> argument can be made for it and a lot of people are utilitarians.
> That's why I say the proposition is not unreasonable.

It is not based in any methodology or even any
reasonable thinking, Boob, and you KNOW it.

You are a venal lying shitbag.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:16:00 PM5/14/04

to

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:01:49 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>"farrell77" wrote:

[..]

>> Also a utilitarian argument can be made for it and a
>> lot of people are utilitarians. That's why I say the
>> proposition is not unreasonable.
>
>It is not based in any methodology or even any
>reasonable thinking, Boob, and you KNOW it.

[This raises an additional problem with Davis's
argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe
we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or
preference-satisfaction in the world not only by
increasing the happiness of existing animals, but
also by increasing the total population of happy
animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993).
A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal,
it is better to have two happy animals than one.

*In the past, this view has been used to justify the
consumption of meat, since farmed animals would
not exist if not for meat production.*]
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:25:12 PM5/14/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:01:49 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>>"farrell77" wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>Also a utilitarian argument can be made for it and a
>>>lot of people are utilitarians. That's why I say the
>>>proposition is not unreasonable.
>>

>>He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try
>>to hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number.
>>It was not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to
>>smear meat eaters, and you know it.
>>
>>He originally said "all", with obviously ZERO support for an
>>obviously wrong conclusion. He then, employing no estimating
>>methodology whatever, pulled "50% + 1" out of his - or is it
>>your? - asshole.
>>
>>Admit, Boob, you fucking cocksucker: there is no basis for
>>it AT ALL, except for that self-crippled dole-cheating
>>dog-beating shitbag Dreck's juvenile wish to tie his opponents
>>to ONE idiot's stupid story.
>>
>>Just ONCE, Boob, stop making an ass of yourself.
>

Fuck you and your failure to address the issue of your
fabrication, Dreck. You employed NO methodology in
fabricating your BULLSHIT "50% + 1" load. You simply
decided you wanted to smear meat eaters, and pulled
that bogus figure out of your gaping, HIV-infected
asshole. You have nothing to support the bullshit
number, and I have hard numbers to support my claim
that it is a minority view.

You pulled your bullshit number out of your asshole,
and Boob shows his complete dishonesty by trying to
defend it as "reasonable", when there is nothing
reasonable about it, AND HE KNOWS IT. He KNOWS that
you fabricated it on the basis of ZERO evidence.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:36:21 PM5/14/04

to

I've said;
"It's a *fair estimate* which I think explains society's

moral view of animals accurately. You believe the

victims of your ugly gluttony should be grateful
for the boon of life it briefly gave them."
ipse dixit http://tinyurl.com/3xpdk

>and I have hard numbers to support my claim
>that it is a minority view.

Oops. Now you've done it. Show me these hard numbers
and explain how they provide support for your claim that
50%-1 subscribe to the logic of the larder. The onus is now
on you to support that claim or retract it honourably, Can
you do either?

>You pulled your bullshit number out of your asshole

Prove you haven't. Mine was just a "fair estimate" while
you have, "hard numbers" to support your claim, allegedly,
so let's see them.
[..]

usual suspect

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:43:39 PM5/14/04

to

farrell77 returned from hanging out in public restrooms and wrote:
<...>

>>Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The Logic
>>of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>>supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
>>were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that basis
>>alone, 50% is way out of line.
>
> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).

A number anywhere near fifty-percent plus one?

> Also a utilitarian
> argument can be made for it and a lot of people are utilitarians.

Fifty-percent plus one?

> That's why I say the proposition is not unreasonable.

Quantify it or shut up. That's the issue.

> Is it actually
> supported by a majority of meat eaters? I don't know. I'm just
> saying it may be.

Are you the same spineless dweeb who posts here as Zakhar? Why don't you find
out before opening your fat yapper and interjecting yourself into a thread when
the thing you don't know is the issue at hand? Geez.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 4:47:43 PM5/14/04

to

usual suspect wrote:

> farrell77 returned from hanging out in public restrooms and wrote:
> <...>
>
>>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
>>> Logic
>>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
>>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
>>> basis
>>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
>>
>>
>> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it

In terms of actual numbers of people in these and
related newsgroups, no more than four people have ever
expressed any support for it, and only two of those
directly. By contrast, at least a dozen people have
actively and explicitly opposed it. In terms of any
actual expressions of opinion the liar Dreck has ever
seen, only a very small minority has ever supported it.
There is ZERO support for Dreck's
steaming-load-of-shit claim.

>> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
>
>
> A number anywhere near fifty-percent plus one?

No. Only two people have ever explicitly supported it,
while at least a dozen have explicitly opposed it.

usual suspect

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:01:19 PM5/14/04

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>>>
>>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
>>> Logic
>>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The rest
>>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
>>> basis
>>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
>>
>> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
>> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
>
> He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
> hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It was
> not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
> eaters, and you know it.

Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray to
defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if Dreck is
right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his claim is wrong?

> He originally said "all", with obviously ZERO support for an obviously
> wrong conclusion. He then, employing no estimating methodology
> whatever, pulled "50% + 1" out of his - or is it your? - asshole.

It's a combined non-effort.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:05:34 PM5/14/04

to

usual suspect wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>>>> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
>>>> Logic
>>>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
>>>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The
>>>> rest
>>>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
>>>> basis
>>>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
>>> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
>>
>>
>> He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
>> hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It
>> was not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
>> eaters, and you know it.
>
>
> Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
> to defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
> Dreck is right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his
> claim is wrong?

I would have thought it strange, prior to acquiring
experience with Sophist Boob Black. Now, I find it
typical. Sophist Boob has also lost any shred of
credibility he ever had, which was tattered and small
to begin with.

Sophist Boob is a liar by profession: law, PR,
advertising, marketing, something that involves
hoodwinking people and NO wealth creation, only
redistribution. He makes his living with empty,
plastic words. Scum, in other words.

Dutch

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:06:30 PM5/14/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:tq8aa0546mu9udatn...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:44:10 -0400, "farrell77"
<farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1096ilc...@news.supernews.com...
> >> "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> >>
> >> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
Logic
> >> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
> >> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The
rest
> >> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
basis
> >> alone, 50% is way out of line.
> >
> >It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> >(I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
>
> "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
> we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as
> David says,* in exchange for the use of their hides.

This is a fact.

> We give them life. They give us their lives, and
> our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,

In the light of Salt's essay, I no longer support this conclusion. It's the
point where Harrison equivocates.

> which I believe includes treating them with respect."
> Dutch 2001-01-19 *my edit*

This is still my belief.

> "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
> partnership."
> Dutch 2001-01-21

My thinking has evolved in 3-1/2 years, at that time I had not thought about
all the ramifications of "The Logic of The Larder" as we now call it.

Has *your* thinking evolved much on this or any issue Dreck?

Are you still the same brute that broke that broom over the dog's back, or
have you mellowed since? I think the former.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:16:08 PM5/14/04

to

Dutch wrote:

> "ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
> news:tq8aa0546mu9udatn...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:44:10 -0400, "farrell77"

>>>

>>>It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
>>>(I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
>>
>>"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
>>we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as
>>David says,* in exchange for the use of their hides.
>
>
> This is a fact.

It is a fact that we breed the animals and use them.
It is not a fact that it is an "exchange" of any kind
with them. The animal breeders and handler and
processors do not care in any way that the animals "get
to live". Their lives have no importance at all to the
producers of the animals and the users of the animal
products.

Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
lives to our demand for the products made from the
animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
animals "owe" nothing.

>
>
>>We give them life. They give us their lives, and
>>our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
>
>
> In the light of Salt's essay, I no longer support this conclusion. It's the
> point where Harrison equivocates.

It is not "mutually beneficial" at all, unless one
considers the mere fact of their lives to have some
intrinsic value, which they don't. To say that the
breeding of the animals is in ANY WAY "beneficial" to
them is to say that being born and "getting to
experience life" is a good, in and of itself. It isn't.

If you no longer believe it, you have gained insight
and moral clarity.

>
>
>>which I believe includes treating them with respect."
>>Dutch 2001-01-19 *my edit*
>
>
> This is still my belief.

Mine, too. It doesn't depend in any way on thinking
that their lives have intrinsic value such that they
"ought" to be born. It is purely conditional on being
born in the first place: IF and ONLY IF they are born,
then they merit respectful treatment. Life only merits
respect once it is underway.

>
>
>>"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
>>partnership."
>>Dutch 2001-01-21
>
>
> My thinking has evolved in 3-1/2 years, at that time I had not thought about
> all the ramifications of "The Logic of The Larder" as we now call it.
>
> Has *your* thinking evolved much on this or any issue Dreck?

Dreck's "thinking", to be overly generous with the
word, is muddled beyond hope.

>
> Are you still the same brute that broke that broom over the dog's back, or
> have you mellowed since? I think the former.

It is. He'd do it again, if he could get out of the
wheelchair.

Dutch

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:16:23 PM5/14/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rk9pc.213$MU4....@news.uswest.net...

If you had any clue at all about normal people you would know that they
believe almost unanimously that keeping and killing animals to obtain food
per_se is either a necessary evil, or aside from AW issues, there is
absolutely nothing wrong with it. The idea that the animals' lives represent
a kind of moral bonus for consumers would be greeted by puzzled stares by
virtually everyone. You might convince some people to entertain the idea for
a while if you worked hard at it, but ultimately thinking people will reject
it as sophistry, as Salt does, and as I did.

Message has been deleted

Dutch

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:28:17 PM5/14/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:sGapc.661$SZ4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
> > news:tq8aa0546mu9udatn...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:44:10 -0400, "farrell77"
>
> >>>
> >>>It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> >>>(I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
> >>
> >>"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
> >>we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as
> >>David says,* in exchange for the use of their hides.
> >
> >
> > This is a fact.
>
> It is a fact that we breed the animals and use them.
> It is not a fact that it is an "exchange" of any kind
> with them. The animal breeders and handler and
> processors do not care in any way that the animals "get
> to live". Their lives have no importance at all to the
> producers of the animals and the users of the animal
> products.
>
> Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
> leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
> lives to our demand for the products made from the
> animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
> animals "owe" nothing.

It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms, but everything else about it
removes all possibility of it being considered an exchange in any kind of
moral terms. There is NO debt.

> >>We give them life. They give us their lives, and
> >>our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
> >
> >
> > In the light of Salt's essay, I no longer support this conclusion. It's
the
> > point where Harrison equivocates.
>
> It is not "mutually beneficial" at all, unless one
> considers the mere fact of their lives to have some
> intrinsic value, which they don't. To say that the
> breeding of the animals is in ANY WAY "beneficial" to
> them is to say that being born and "getting to
> experience life" is a good, in and of itself. It isn't.

> If you no longer believe it, you have gained insight
> and moral clarity.

I'm not as clear as you are that life itself cannot be viewed as having
inherent or utilitarian value of some kind, even the life of a chicken. I am
however VERY sure that humans are NOT entitled to derive any reflected moral
glory from it out of the livestock/consumer relationship.

> >>which I believe includes treating them with respect."
> >>Dutch 2001-01-19 *my edit*
> >
> >
> > This is still my belief.
>
> Mine, too. It doesn't depend in any way on thinking
> that their lives have intrinsic value such that they
> "ought" to be born. It is purely conditional on being
> born in the first place: IF and ONLY IF they are born,
> then they merit respectful treatment. Life only merits
> respect once it is underway.

Of course, that's where Harrison *really* heads off the rails.

[..]

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 5:40:04 PM5/14/04

to

Dutch wrote:

No, because their lives are not physical entities.
They are little factories. No producer thinks of
putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.

> but everything else about it
> removes all possibility of it being considered an exchange in any kind of
> moral terms. There is NO debt.
>
>
>>>>We give them life. They give us their lives, and
>>>>our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
>>>
>>>
>>>In the light of Salt's essay, I no longer support this conclusion. It's
>>>the point where Harrison equivocates.
>>
>>It is not "mutually beneficial" at all, unless one
>>considers the mere fact of their lives to have some
>>intrinsic value, which they don't. To say that the
>>breeding of the animals is in ANY WAY "beneficial" to
>>them is to say that being born and "getting to
>>experience life" is a good, in and of itself. It isn't.
>
>
>>If you no longer believe it, you have gained insight
>>and moral clarity.
>
>
> I'm not as clear as you are that life itself cannot be viewed as having
> inherent or utilitarian value of some kind, even the life of a chicken.

Not to the animals itself, it doesn't. Not *initial*
life, anyway, by which we mean "to come into
existence". That means nothing to them. *Continued*
existence, once they exist, obviously means something;
that's why they flee danger.

Any value is in the minds of humans, not the animals.

> I am
> however VERY sure that humans are NOT entitled to derive any reflected moral
> glory from it out of the livestock/consumer relationship.

As long as you're going to limit yourself to talking
about *human* valuation of the animals, then some
credit can be taken. If you like to see contented farm
animals in the field, for whatever reason, and if I
raise livestock and you drive by and see the animals in
my field, then I have provided value to you. It should
be obvious by now that THIS is the sort of "value"
Fuckwit Harrison gets out of it. He just likes knowing
that moo-cows and piggies and chickies and duckies are
"out there", and he doesn't want anyone to take this
away from him. It's all about HIM, not any animals'
interest.

>
>
>>>>which I believe includes treating them with respect."
>>>>Dutch 2001-01-19 *my edit*
>>>
>>>
>>>This is still my belief.
>>
>>Mine, too. It doesn't depend in any way on thinking
>>that their lives have intrinsic value such that they
>>"ought" to be born. It is purely conditional on being
>>born in the first place: IF and ONLY IF they are born,
>>then they merit respectful treatment. Life only merits
>>respect once it is underway.
>
>
> Of course, that's where Harrison *really* heads off the rails.

He derailed and burned years ago.

Dutch

unread,

May 14, 2004, 6:14:20 PM5/14/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

> >>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
> >>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
> >>lives to our demand for the products made from the
> >>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
> >>animals "owe" nothing.
> >
> >
> > It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
>
> No, because their lives are not physical entities.

How can you say that?

> They are little factories. No producer thinks of
> putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
> some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
> is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.

A livestock animal is still a living creature, as well as a food factory, so
it is possible to have some kinds of interactions with it, including
exchanges. Milk cows get oats in exchange for coming in to the barn at
milking time. What's fatally flawed is this particular idea of a "life for
meat" exchange for all the reasons we have gone over many times. It's an
exchange of sorts, but it's controlled by and geared to benefit US. We are
not entitled to any points for the lives of the animals involved.

> > but everything else about it
> > removes all possibility of it being considered an exchange in any kind
of
> > moral terms. There is NO debt.
> >
> >
> >>>>We give them life. They give us their lives, and
> >>>>our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In the light of Salt's essay, I no longer support this conclusion. It's
> >>>the point where Harrison equivocates.
> >>
> >>It is not "mutually beneficial" at all, unless one
> >>considers the mere fact of their lives to have some
> >>intrinsic value, which they don't. To say that the
> >>breeding of the animals is in ANY WAY "beneficial" to
> >>them is to say that being born and "getting to
> >>experience life" is a good, in and of itself. It isn't.
> >
> >
> >>If you no longer believe it, you have gained insight
> >>and moral clarity.
> >
> >
> > I'm not as clear as you are that life itself cannot be viewed as having
> > inherent or utilitarian value of some kind, even the life of a chicken.
>
> Not to the animals itself, it doesn't. Not *initial*
> life, anyway, by which we mean "to come into
> existence". That means nothing to them. *Continued*
> existence, once they exist, obviously means something;
> that's why they flee danger.

I agree.

> Any value is in the minds of humans, not the animals.

I don't know how you can say that either. Fwiw animals probably derive
"animal satisfaction" from life processes, play, etc.. that can be measured
as value of sorts.

> > I am
> > however VERY sure that humans are NOT entitled to derive any reflected
moral
> > glory from it out of the livestock/consumer relationship.
>
> As long as you're going to limit yourself to talking
> about *human* valuation of the animals, then some
> credit can be taken. If you like to see contented farm
> animals in the field, for whatever reason, and if I
> raise livestock and you drive by and see the animals in
> my field, then I have provided value to you.

It may make you feel good, but it doesn't make you "a better person" and
that's what morality measures. If you rescue an animal from abuse, that has
moral content. If you raise it for food, that doesn't.

It should
> be obvious by now that THIS is the sort of "value"
> Fuckwit Harrison gets out of it. He just likes knowing
> that moo-cows and piggies and chickies and duckies are
> "out there", and he doesn't want anyone to take this
> away from him. It's all about HIM, not any animals'
> interest.

I don't think he cares about the animals one way or the other, except that
he imagines that their lives equate to a moral bonus plan for his
guilt-ridden confused morality.

[..]

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 14, 2004, 6:33:47 PM5/14/04

to

Dutch wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
>>>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
>>>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
>>>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
>>>>animals "owe" nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
>>
>>No, because their lives are not physical entities.
>
>
> How can you say that?

Easily. The animals are physical entities; their lives
are not.

What is being "exchanged"? An exchange means two
entities who trade something. What are the animals
trading?

>
>
>>They are little factories. No producer thinks of
>>putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
>>some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
>>is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.
>
>
> A livestock animal is still a living creature, as well as a food factory, so
> it is possible to have some kinds of interactions with it, including
> exchanges.

I disagree. Exchange means trade in this context, and
the animals aren't trading anything. To use "exchange"
in this way is to project, to pervert the word.

> Milk cows get oats in exchange for coming in to the barn at
> milking time.

No, they're *made* to come into the barn, and they're
fed something. The expectation is that they'll provide
milk as a result; not as some kind of conscious
"exchange", but because they can't help it.

To use "exchange" as you're trying to do is to project
what a human exchange might be. I exhange my time for
some money. If I decide I don't like the terms, I can
stop and find another client or employer. "Exchange"
implies some kind of control over the value of the
things being exchanged, and at least theoretically an
informed decision: the butcher values a new pair of
shoes more highly than he does a quarter of beef, and
the shoemaker feels the opposite.

The farmer doesn't need to take the livestock animals'
valuations into account at all. He puts inputs into
them and gets outputs out.

But they don't value "getting to live" in the first
place. Animals don't want to die, but no animals
except humans look backward and think, "I'm glad I have
existed, so far."

[...]

>>It should be obvious by now that THIS is the sort of "value"
>>Fuckwit Harrison gets out of it. He just likes knowing
>>that moo-cows and piggies and chickies and duckies are
>>"out there", and he doesn't want anyone to take this
>>away from him. It's all about HIM, not any animals'
>>interest.
>
>
> I don't think he cares about the animals one way or the other, except that
> he imagines that their lives equate to a moral bonus plan for his
> guilt-ridden confused morality.

I think he also believes, simple-mindedly, that it's
the best club he can devise with which to whack
"vegans". It doesn't even have the heft of a feather.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 14, 2004, 6:42:23 PM5/14/04

to

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:14:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>
>> >>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
>> >>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
>> >>lives to our demand for the products made from the
>> >>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
>> >>animals "owe" nothing.
>> >
>> > It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
>>
>> No, because their lives are not physical entities.
>
>How can you say that?
>
>> They are little factories. No producer thinks of
>> putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
>> some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
>> is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.
>
>A livestock animal is still a living creature, as well as a food factory, so
>it is possible to have some kinds of interactions with it, including
>exchanges. Milk cows get oats in exchange for coming in to the barn at
>milking time.

But you were talking of "giving them a life
*as David says,*
in exchange for the use of their hides. We

give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,"

Here's your quote (below) to prove it, so why
are you lying to your protector, Dutch? He may
bite you one day if you continue fucking him.

"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that

we create, breed and raise, giving them a life as
David says, in exchange for the use of their hides.

We give them life. They give us their lives, and
our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,

which I believe includes treating them with respect."
Dutch 2001-01-19

[..]

farrell77

unread,

May 14, 2004, 6:52:07 PM5/14/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:NA9pc.556$SZ4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

[...]

> You are a venal lying shitbag.

You're describing yourself very well.

farrell77

unread,

May 14, 2004, 7:02:07 PM5/14/04

to

"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
news:zsapc.109143$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> >>>
> >>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
> >>> Logic
> >>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
> >>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The
rest
> >>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
> >>> basis
> >>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
> >>
> >> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> >> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
> >
> > He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
> > hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It was
> > not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
> > eaters, and you know it.
>
> Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
to
> defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if Dreck
is
> right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his claim is
wrong?

Complex question fallacy, loaded with what are several false
(and most likely intentionally dishonest) assumptions.

When are you going to stop lying, christian?

[...]

Message has been deleted

Dutch

unread,

May 14, 2004, 9:30:26 PM5/14/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote

> But you were talking of

The operative there word is "were". Get off this ancient history kick and
deal with arguments being made by people here and now, today, if you're
capable.

Dutch

unread,

May 15, 2004, 1:57:41 AM5/15/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> >>>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
> >>>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
> >>>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
> >>>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
> >>>>animals "owe" nothing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
> >>
> >>No, because their lives are not physical entities.
> >
> >
> > How can you say that?
>
> Easily. The animals are physical entities; their lives
> are not.

That's a fine distinction.

> What is being "exchanged"? An exchange means two
> entities who trade something. What are the animals
> trading?

They are giving up their lives in exchange for a few months of chowing down
and mooing.

> >>They are little factories. No producer thinks of
> >>putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
> >>some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
> >>is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.
> >
> >
> > A livestock animal is still a living creature, as well as a food
factory, so
> > it is possible to have some kinds of interactions with it, including
> > exchanges.
>
> I disagree. Exchange means trade in this context, and
> the animals aren't trading anything. To use "exchange"
> in this way is to project, to pervert the word.

I tend to use words literally at times, without the usual inferences. In
this case I am not implying that there is some kind of fair and free
exchange as one has in a market between a buyer and seller. There is simply
a literal exchange, the animal gets a few months food and shelter from the
farmer, in exchange the farmer gets animal products from the animal.

However, the exchange is completely for the benefit of man, and any animal
pleasure that might occur is total gravy, with no moral value to humans. In
fact the process of consuming animal products is so one-sided that it is a
moral black hole which absorbs all attempts at promoting animal welfare. It
begins as neutral and can only get worse by poor husbandry, it can never
become a "benefit" to the farmer or consumer, ever.

> > Milk cows get oats in exchange for coming in to the barn at
> > milking time.
>
> No, they're *made* to come into the barn, and they're
> fed something.

Milk cows come willingly in from the pasture because they know they will be
getting a treat. They aren't forced.

> The expectation is that they'll provide
> milk as a result; not as some kind of conscious
> "exchange", but because they can't help it.

I didn't say it was conscious, it's simply a physical arrangement.

> To use "exchange" as you're trying to do is to project
> what a human exchange might be. I exhange my time for
> some money. If I decide I don't like the terms, I can
> stop and find another client or employer. "Exchange"
> implies some kind of control over the value of the
> things being exchanged, and at least theoretically an
> informed decision: the butcher values a new pair of
> shoes more highly than he does a quarter of beef, and
> the shoemaker feels the opposite.

I'm not trying to say it's a like a human/human exchange, it just takes
place on a physical level.

> The farmer doesn't need to take the livestock animals'
> valuations into account at all.

Not necessarily perhaps, but he might. They say that happy animals are the
best producers, so it is in the farmer's interest to make his animals
contented. Now you only have to concede that animals have an interest in
being contented.

> He puts inputs into
> them and gets outputs out.

Sure, the animal has no idea what is going on, and has no say in how the
exchange is conducted, he is a passive participant in a process.

[...]

> >>Any value is in the minds of humans, not the animals.
> >
> >
> > I don't know how you can say that either. Fwiw animals probably derive
> > "animal satisfaction" from life processes, play, etc.. that can be
measured
> > as value of sorts.
>
> But they don't value "getting to live" in the first
> place. Animals don't want to die, but no animals
> except humans look backward and think, "I'm glad I have
> existed, so far."

Of course, animals can't contemplate their own existence, that's probably
unique to humans, but their life is *something*, and that something could be
assigned some kind of value on some scale of experience.

That still does not mean that value is automatically transferrable as a
moral credit to anyone.

[...]
>
> >>It should be obvious by now that THIS is the sort of "value"
> >>Fuckwit Harrison gets out of it. He just likes knowing
> >>that moo-cows and piggies and chickies and duckies are
> >>"out there", and he doesn't want anyone to take this
> >>away from him. It's all about HIM, not any animals'
> >>interest.
> >
> >
> > I don't think he cares about the animals one way or the other, except
that
> > he imagines that their lives equate to a moral bonus plan for his
> > guilt-ridden confused morality.
>
> I think he also believes, simple-mindedly, that it's
> the best club he can devise with which to whack
> "vegans". It doesn't even have the heft of a feather.

I think it's much worse than lightweight, because it takes something as
clearly self-serving as raising livestock and attempts to use sophistry to
milk moral value out of it. It gives credence to ARAs and is a shit-stain on
legitimate anti-ARAs. Look how Nash is attempting to exploit it.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 15, 2004, 2:15:46 AM5/15/04

to

Dutch wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
>>>>>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
>>>>>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
>>>>>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
>>>>>>animals "owe" nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
>>>>
>>>>No, because their lives are not physical entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>How can you say that?
>>
>>Easily. The animals are physical entities; their lives
>>are not.
>
>
> That's a fine distinction.

Not too. You said there is an exchange in purely
physical terms, but lives are not physical. It seems
pretty elementary to me.

>
>
>>What is being "exchanged"? An exchange means two
>>entities who trade something. What are the animals
>>trading?
>
>
> They are giving up their lives

No, they aren't. Their lives are taken from them. YOU
might "give up" your life for something, but livestock
animals can't.

This is the fundamental problem with viewing it as an
"exchange". The traders must be able to *view* it as
an exchange. Clearly, the livestock animals can't.

> in exchange for a few months of chowing down
> and mooing.
>
>
>>>>They are little factories. No producer thinks of
>>>>putting inputs into a factory in order to get output as
>>>>some kind of "exchange" with the factory. The factory
>>>>is merely a means of production. So are livestock animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>A livestock animal is still a living creature, as well as a food factory, so
>>>it is possible to have some kinds of interactions with it, including
>>>exchanges.
>>
>>I disagree. Exchange means trade in this context, and
>>the animals aren't trading anything. To use "exchange"
>>in this way is to project, to pervert the word.
>
>
> I tend to use words literally at times, without the usual inferences. In
> this case I am not implying that there is some kind of fair and free
> exchange as one has in a market between a buyer and seller. There is simply
> a literal exchange, the animal gets a few months food and shelter from the
> farmer, in exchange the farmer gets animal products from the animal.

The problem is that the usage provides support, even if
unintended, for the "getting to experience life"
bullshit. The fuckwits (I & II), not to mention the
shitworm Dreck Nash, can seize on the usage and pretend
you *do* think of it as some kind of conscious trade,
even if you don't.

I just don't find anything that creates the possibility
of ambiguity to be helpful, and "exchange" creates
ambiguity.

>
> However, the exchange is completely for the benefit of man, and any animal
> pleasure that might occur is total gravy, with no moral value to humans. In
> fact the process of consuming animal products is so one-sided that it is a
> moral black hole which absorbs all attempts at promoting animal welfare. It
> begins as neutral and can only get worse by poor husbandry, it can never
> become a "benefit" to the farmer or consumer, ever.
>
>
>>>Milk cows get oats in exchange for coming in to the barn at
>>>milking time.
>>
>>No, they're *made* to come into the barn, and they're
>>fed something.
>
>
> Milk cows come willingly in from the pasture because they know they will be
> getting a treat. They aren't forced.

They would be forced if they were recalcitrant. That
they are lured doesn't transform the "transaction" into
an exhange or trade. The cows don't know what they're
doing.

Dutch

unread,

May 15, 2004, 3:55:49 AM5/15/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>[..]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
> >>>>>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
> >>>>>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
> >>>>>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
> >>>>>>animals "owe" nothing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
> >>>>
> >>>>No, because their lives are not physical entities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How can you say that?
> >>
> >>Easily. The animals are physical entities; their lives
> >>are not.
> >
> >
> > That's a fine distinction.
>
> Not too. You said there is an exchange in purely
> physical terms, but lives are not physical. It seems
> pretty elementary to me.

Their lives per_se aren't physical entities, but their experiences are. The
animals' experiences are what they get.

> >>What is being "exchanged"? An exchange means two
> >>entities who trade something. What are the animals
> >>trading?
> >
> >
> > They are giving up their lives
>
> No, they aren't. Their lives are taken from them. YOU
> might "give up" your life for something, but livestock
> animals can't. This is the fundamental problem with viewing it as an
> "exchange". The traders must be able to *view* it as
> an exchange. Clearly, the livestock animals can't.

Maybe the word exchange doesn't fit, you're right, but life is experienced
by the animals. There's something there, and it's this phenomenon on which
the The Logic of the Larder places value when assessing the morality of
raising livestock. This is where it goes wrong.

[..]

> > There is simply
> > a literal exchange, the animal gets a few months food and shelter from
the
> > farmer, in exchange the farmer gets animal products from the animal.
>
> The problem is that the usage provides support, even if
> unintended, for the "getting to experience life"
> bullshit. The fuckwits (I & II), not to mention the
> shitworm Dreck Nash, can seize on the usage and pretend
> you *do* think of it as some kind of conscious trade,
> even if you don't.

Idiots just believe whatever they want anyway. You're as precise and
articulate as one can be, yet they both misconstrue your words constantly.

Despite what I said about "exchange" and I suspect you're absolutely right,
I'm twisting the word out of all context, I do NOT believe the animals'
experience has any weight whatsoever in determining the morality of using
animals. It's completely extraneous.

> I just don't find anything that creates the possibility
> of ambiguity to be helpful, and "exchange" creates
> ambiguity.

I guess it does.. but somebody has to keep Nash busy cooking up new
bullshit.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 15, 2004, 5:07:53 AM5/15/04

to

*my edit*

Like Harrison, you want to get away from your
old quotes on this issue because they reveal your
true understanding of it, but like Jonathan who
won't let Harrison get away from his old quotes,
I'm not going to let you, either. To paraphrase him.

"No need to lie. I have it in your own words:

"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
we create, breed and raise, giving them a life as
David says, in exchange for the use of their hides.
We give them life. They give us their lives, and
our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
which I believe includes treating them with respect."

Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."

Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8

Goddamnit, *Dutch*, that's just priceless! You know
what *those quotes are? Those quotes are*a pit bull
with his jaws clamped tightly around your little stub
of a pencil dick:

"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
we create, breed and raise, giving them a life as
David says, in exchange for the use of their hides.
We give them life. They give us their lives, and
our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract,
which I believe includes treating them with respect."

Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."

Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8

Haw haw haw! You'll never get free; that pit bull
dog is just going to hang onto your junk as long as
you continue to participate in usenet!
Jonathan Ball to Harrison http://tinyurl.com/2s3fd

I see no reason why Harrison's quotes count while
yours don't, dummy. In fact, Harrison's quotes are
older than yours.

usual suspect

unread,

May 15, 2004, 8:51:26 AM5/15/04

to

farrell77 wrote:
>>>He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
>>>hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It was
>>>not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
>>>eaters, and you know it.
>>
>>Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
> to
>>defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if Dreck
> is
>>right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his claim is
> wrong?
>
> Complex question fallacy,

No, it is not.

> loaded with what are several false
> (and most likely intentionally dishonest) assumptions.

How is it false or dishonest for anyone to note that you (once again) intervened
in a thread to defend a member of the side only to admit your lack of assurance
about the actual facts of the matter up for discussion? It's beyond a pattern,
Boob, it's your MO.

<...>

Dutch

unread,

May 15, 2004, 2:03:06 PM5/15/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote

> *my edit*
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:30:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote
> >
> >> But you were talking of
> >
> >The operative there word is "were". Get off this ancient history kick and
> >deal with arguments being made by people here and now, today, if you're
> >capable.
>
> Like Harrison,

I'm not like Harrison at all.

> you want to get away from your
> old quotes on this issue because they reveal your
> true understanding of it,

My older quotes on this issue in juxtaposition to my statements now show
that there has been a progression in my thinking on it. That progression is
not over, I am still considering the implications of it. You have no
rational basis to select quotes from several years ago and label them as "my
true understanding". You say a lot of things for which you have no rational
basis, that's why your name is so well chosen.

> but like Jonathan who
> won't let Harrison get away from his old quotes,

I'm not trying to get away from my old quotes, it's just pointless to debate
with someone who is arguing against remarks you made over three years ago.

> I'm not going to let you, either.

Suit yourself, it's your time to waste. As soon as I see those old quotes I
just delete everything and move on.

[..]

> I see no reason why Harrison's quotes count while
> yours don't, dummy. In fact, Harrison's quotes are
> older than yours.

Harrison's old quotes have nothing to do with me, so your point is
irrelevant. He has always supported the Logic of the Larder and still does,
so his quotes still apply. I have entertained the utilitarian roots of the
idea and have found it interesting, but ultimately find it a fatally flawed
idea. That's my position, if you would prefer to hack away at mouldy old
strawmen that's your privilege.

ShawnKatie13

unread,

May 16, 2004, 1:45:40 PM5/16/04

to

just be nice
~member ship
~klk

Message has been deleted

Jonathan Ball

unread,

May 16, 2004, 2:21:57 PM5/16/04

to

ShawnKatie13 wrote:

> just be nice

No. Usual Suspect's target, the professional
liar/shit-stirrer Bob Black, does not deserve nice
treatment. He deserves ONLY rhetorical kicks in the
head. He is a shitbag by profession.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 17, 2004, 8:01:57 AM5/17/04

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:10acmqu...@news.supernews.com...

> "ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote
> > *my edit*
> > On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:30:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote
> > >
> > >> But you were talking of
> > >
> > >The operative there word is "were". Get off this ancient history kick and
> > >deal with arguments being made by people here and now, today, if you're
> > >capable.
> >
> > Like Harrison,
>
> I'm not like Harrison at all.

You've already admitted that you are;

"Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
we create, breed and raise, giving them a life

*as David says*,

in exchange for the use of their hides. We give
them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles.
It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe
includes treating them with respect."
Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q

> > you want to get away from your

> > old quotes on this issue because they reveal your
> > true understanding of it,
>
> My older quotes on this issue in juxtaposition to my statements now show
> that there has been a progression in my thinking on it.

This lie can be shown by looking at your recent
quotes in a discussion you had with Jonathan;
You've since gone on from there and recently
insisted only a few days ago that animals owe

their lives to our demand for the products made

from them in this "mutually beneficial contract" you
say exists between us, so you can hardly say your
old quotes aren't a demonstration of your current
view;

[start, Jonathan Ball to Dutch]

>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
>>animals "owe" nothing.

> [Dutch]

> It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,

[Jonathan Ball]

No, because their lives are not physical entities.

[end]
Fri, 14 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/ytc2h

You're in exactly the same boat as Harrison. You've
both stated in the past and recently that animals owe
us their meat and hides on the basis that we provided
them with life.

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."
Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8

"It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms"
Dutch 2004 -05-15 http://tinyurl.com/ytc2h

Check those dates. You've been holding the same
view as Harrison for over 2 years while hypocritically
and hatefully sniping at him from behind Jon's skirt.

> > but like Jonathan who
> > won't let Harrison get away from his old quotes,
>
> I'm not trying to get away from my old quotes,

You ARE trying desperately to get away from them,
but, like Jon once said to Harrison;

> > I see no reason why Harrison's quotes count while
> > yours don't, dummy. In fact, Harrison's quotes are
> > older than yours.
>
> Harrison's old quotes have nothing to do with me,

You've admitted they do in the very quote we're
discussing, and you even admit to Polly that you're
quoting him, so stop lying and look at your quote
in context with Polly's comment;

> > [start Dutch]

> > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
> > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life
> > as David says, in exchange for the use of their
> > hides. We give them life. They give us their
> > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial
> > contract, which I believe includes treating them

> > with respect. The only contract I have with mice
> > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you.
> > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe
> > we're not so different after all.
> [Polly]
> Although we know there's no literal "contract", I
> do like your way of stating the fact that both humans
> and animals benefit from the animals' domestication.
[Dutch]
Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David..
who'da thunk???
Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2jdml

SEE, stupid liar? You admit that you're quoting David.

f...@chance.com

unread,

May 17, 2004, 2:41:47 PM5/17/04

to

This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.

Dutch

unread,

May 17, 2004, 2:47:35 PM5/17/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote nothing interesting

Have you stopped beating your dog yet Nash?

ipse dixit

unread,

May 17, 2004, 3:33:01 PM5/17/04

to

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:47:35 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote nothing interesting
>
>Have you stopped beating your dog yet

I never did beat any dog to begin with. That cheap and obvious
diversion aside, let's get back to what you snipped away and
see if you can stand your ground.

<unsnip>
>Dutch wrote

*as David says*,

Derek

unread,

May 17, 2004, 3:34:43 PM5/17/04

to

ipse dixit wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:47:35 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote nothing interesting
>>
>>Have you stopped beating your dog yet
>
>
> I never did beat any dog to begin with.

That's a lie, fucktard. You beat your dog Merlin with
a broom handle, so hard that you broke the handle.

Stop lying.

Dutch

unread,

May 17, 2004, 5:29:43 PM5/17/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@tchance.com> wrote in message
news:tk4ia09gi45qjq2pl...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:47:35 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote nothing interesting
> >
> >Have you stopped beating your dog yet
>
> I never did beat any dog to begin with.

Of course. My dog quivers like a jelly when I pick up
a broom to sweep the garden. I must get a new handle
for that old broom one of these days.
http://tinyurl.com/24n5r

That is a candid admission.

farrell77

unread,

May 20, 2004, 3:48:31 PM5/20/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:uhOpc.2415$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> shit-eating liar Sophist Boob Black lied:

>
> > "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> > news:zsapc.109143$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
>

> Dreck isn't making a "proposition", you shit-eating
> lying cocksucker Bob Black. He's making a deliberately
> false claim. He KNOWS he has no rational basis for it,
> and so do you. Your professional liar's language -
> "not unreasonable" - is a deliberate lie on your part,
> as well as deliberately evasive. ...

Nope. It's an attempt to be accurate. Try it sometime.

[...snipped childish tantrum from a liar....]

> We are right: you are merely shit-stirring, and
> defending The Side because you are a professional liar
> and deliberately unethical polemicist. You never were
> interested in any meaningful "debate", lying
> shit-eating Sophist Boob. Your ONLY intent here, ever,
> was to practice your sophistry and language abuse,
> which are essential ingredients of your
> wealth-destroying profession.

What do you think my profession is? Provide some
hard evidence for your answer.

farrell77

unread,

May 20, 2004, 3:56:39 PM5/20/04

to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message

news:ywapc.646$SZ4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> usual suspect wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> >>>>> His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> >>>>
> >>>>

> >>>> Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
> >>>> Logic

> >>>> of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
> >>>> supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The
> >>>> rest
> >>>> were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
> >>>> basis
> >>>> alone, 50% is way out of line.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it
> >>> (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example).
> >>
> >>

> >> He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
> >> hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It
> >> was not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
> >> eaters, and you know it.
> >
> >
> > Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
> > to defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
> > Dreck is right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his
> > claim is wrong?

Provide exact quotes from me proving each of your
claims. Or alternately you could learn to read more
carefully.

> I would have thought it strange, prior to acquiring
> experience with Sophist Boob Black. Now, I find it
> typical. Sophist Boob has also lost any shred of
> credibility he ever had, which was tattered and small
> to begin with.
>
> Sophist Boob is a liar by profession: law, PR,
> advertising, marketing, ...

There's nothing inherently wrong with law, PR, advertising,
or marketing.

If you were falsely accused of some wrongdoing (in your
case the accusation would probably be true, but we can
hypothesize otherwise), wouldn't you hire a lawyer to
help prove your innocence.

If you owned a company, wouldn't you engage in some
PR practices? Wouldn't you advertise and market your
products and services?

Lastly which of those four professions are you claiming is
mine? Don't bother to answer if you can't provide some
hard evidence.

> ...something that involves
> hoodwinking people ...

Incorrect, liar jonnie.

> ...and NO wealth creation, ...

Please describe exactly what I do and have been doing
for, say, the last 15 years and show that no wealth creation
has resulted.

> ...only
> redistribution. ....

What would be wrong with voluntary redistribution,
as long as it involves two informed consenting parties
exchanging 'things' of value to each other? Isn't some
sort of redistribution involved in all transactions?

> ...He makes his living with empty,
> plastic words. Scum, in other words.

Prove it. Provide lots of documented details on
what I do and have done for a living, liar jonnie.
I want specifics or an admission that you're making
it all up.

[...]

Dutch

unread,

May 20, 2004, 4:04:00 PM5/20/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zY7rc.33$wE1....@news.uswest.net...

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:uhOpc.2415$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > shit-eating liar Sophist Boob Black lied:
> >
> > > "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> > > news:zsapc.109143$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > >
> > >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> >
> > Dreck isn't making a "proposition", you shit-eating
> > lying cocksucker Bob Black. He's making a deliberately
> > false claim. He KNOWS he has no rational basis for it,
> > and so do you. Your professional liar's language -
> > "not unreasonable" - is a deliberate lie on your part,
> > as well as deliberately evasive. ...
>
> Nope. It's an attempt to be accurate. Try it sometime.

It's an attempt to needle, it's what he does. It's also totally
unreasonable.

[..]

> What do you think my profession is? Provide some
> hard evidence for your answer.

Profession liar? The hard evidence is your statement that Dreck's "50%+1" is
"not an unreasonable one".

farrell77

unread,

May 20, 2004, 4:13:58 PM5/20/04

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:10aq3pg...@news.supernews.com...

>
> "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zY7rc.33$wE1....@news.uswest.net...
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:uhOpc.2415$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > shit-eating liar Sophist Boob Black lied:
> > >
> > > > "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> > > > news:zsapc.109143$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> > >
> > > Dreck isn't making a "proposition", you shit-eating
> > > lying cocksucker Bob Black. He's making a deliberately
> > > false claim. He KNOWS he has no rational basis for it,
> > > and so do you. Your professional liar's language -
> > > "not unreasonable" - is a deliberate lie on your part,
> > > as well as deliberately evasive. ...
> >
> > Nope. It's an attempt to be accurate. Try it sometime.
>
> It's an attempt to needle, it's what he does. It's also totally
> unreasonable.

What's an attempt to needle? What's totally unreasonable?

> [..]
>
> > What do you think my profession is? Provide some
> > hard evidence for your answer.
>
> Profession liar? The hard evidence is your statement that Dreck's "50%+1"
is
> "not an unreasonable one".

No, it's an accurate and completely valid expression
of what I believe.

farrell77

unread,

May 20, 2004, 4:22:15 PM5/20/04

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:10aadp9...@news.supernews.com...

> "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:rk9pc.213$MU4....@news.uswest.net...

> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

> > news:1096ilc...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote

> > >
> > > > His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> > >

> > > Based on which sample? Of those who have expressed an opinion on The
> Logic
> > > of the Larder on this newsgroup, only two I recall besides Harrison
> > > supported it, Polly and Benfez, and Benfez reversed his stance. The
rest
> > > were adamantly against it. That leaves two out of about ten. On that
> basis
> > > alone, 50% is way out of line.
> >
> > It's based on the fact that a number of people have supported it

> > (I'm not so sure that you haven't, for example). Also a utilitarian
> > argument can be made for it and a lot of people are utilitarians.
> > That's why I say the proposition is not unreasonable. Is it actually
> > supported by a majority of meat eaters? I don't know. I'm just
> > saying it may be.
>
> If you had any clue at all about normal people you would know that they
> believe almost unanimously that keeping and killing animals to obtain food
> per_se is either a necessary evil, or aside from AW issues, there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with it. ...

What are normal people? What makes you think I don't
have a clue about them? Whom do think I hang around
with all day? How do you know they aren't normal?

> ...The idea that the animals' lives represent
> a kind of moral bonus for consumers would be greeted by puzzled stares by
> virtually everyone. ...

Ipse dixit.

>...You might convince some people to entertain the idea for
> a while if you worked hard at it, but ultimately thinking people will
reject
> it as sophistry, ...

It's nice that you can speak for "thinking people".

> ...as Salt does, and as I did.

I agree it's a poor argument, but a utilitarian argument supporting
it could easily be constructed.

farrell77

unread,

May 20, 2004, 4:26:25 PM5/20/04

to

"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message

news:inopc.108669$Dn1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...

> farrell77 wrote:
> >>>He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
> >>>hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It
was
> >>>not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
> >>>eaters, and you know it.
> >>
> >>Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
> > to
> >>defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
Dreck
> > is
> >>right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his claim is
> > wrong?
> >
> > Complex question fallacy,
>
> No, it is not.

If my purpose had been to defend Derek, I would have
explicitly done so. So your question is based on acceptance
of a false claim.

> > loaded with what are several false
> > (and most likely intentionally dishonest) assumptions.
>
> How is it false or dishonest for anyone to note that you (once again)
intervened

> in a thread to defend a member ...

I clearly didn't do that. Learn to read.

> ...of the side ...

As I've said before, the notion of "the side" is erroneous.
There are many sides.

> ...only to admit your lack of assurance

> about the actual facts of the matter up for discussion?

I'm sure that the proposition is not unreasonable. It
may or may not be true, bit to present it as a proposition
that may be true is not unreasonable.

> ...It's beyond a pattern,

> Boob, it's your MO.

Nope. But name-calling and lying are yours, "christian".

Dutch

unread,

May 21, 2004, 12:37:47 AM5/21/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:pk8rc.41$wE1....@news.uswest.net...

> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:10aq3pg...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:zY7rc.33$wE1....@news.uswest.net...
> > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > > news:uhOpc.2415$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > shit-eating liar Sophist Boob Black lied:
> > > >
> > > > > "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> > > > > news:zsapc.109143$hR1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>>His proposition is not an unreasonable one.
> > > >
> > > > Dreck isn't making a "proposition", you shit-eating
> > > > lying cocksucker Bob Black. He's making a deliberately
> > > > false claim. He KNOWS he has no rational basis for it,
> > > > and so do you. Your professional liar's language -
> > > > "not unreasonable" - is a deliberate lie on your part,
> > > > as well as deliberately evasive. ...
> > >
> > > Nope. It's an attempt to be accurate. Try it sometime.
> >
> > It's an attempt to needle, it's what he does. It's also totally
> > unreasonable.
>
> What's an attempt to needle?

Derek's assertion that "All meatarians subscribe to the logic of the
larder." which was later amended to "50%+1 of meatarians subscribe to the
logic of the larder." Both were attempts to jab at opponents like Jonathan
and I who have been arguing against Harrison and this "logic" for years.
Derek had no basis for either statement, and there is no reason to believe
that either is true. Neither you nor Derek have offered any such reason.
Harrison claims that he has introduced some people to the idea and they
didn't object, but they were likely just humoring him.

> What's totally unreasonable?

The proposition that any significant number of the population subscribe to
the logic of the larder is totally unreasonable.

[..]
> >
> > > What do you think my profession is? Provide some
> > > hard evidence for your answer.
> >

> > Professional liar? The hard evidence is your statement that Dreck's

"50%+1"
> is
> > "not an unreasonable one".
>
> No, it's an accurate and completely valid expression
> of what I believe.

Then *you* are totally unreasonable.

Dutch

unread,

May 21, 2004, 1:03:58 AM5/21/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote

> > If you had any clue at all about normal people you would know that they
> > believe almost unanimously that keeping and killing animals to obtain
food
> > per_se is either a necessary evil, or aside from AW issues, there is
> > absolutely nothing wrong with it. ...
>
> What are normal people?

People with normal, "typical" ideas about animals.

> What makes you think I don't
> have a clue about them?

Your statements about their beliefs make it apparent.

> Whom do think I hang around
> with all day?

I imagine you are in your own little world, although other people are
around, you don't really get them.

> How do you know they aren't normal?

*They* are normal.

> > ...The idea that the animals' lives represent
> > a kind of moral bonus for consumers would be greeted by puzzled stares
by
> > virtually everyone. ...
>
> Ipse dixit.

I am in a better position to know how "normal people" think (i.e. NOT ARAs)
than you are. How long has it been since you were "normal"?

> >...You might convince some people to entertain the idea for
> > a while if you worked hard at it, but ultimately thinking people will
> > reject it as sophistry, ...
>
> It's nice that you can speak for "thinking people".

I should be able to, I am one.

> > ...as Salt does, and as I did.
>
> I agree it's a poor argument,

We agree, good. Do you consider yourself a thinking person? Thank you for
supporting my point.

> but a utilitarian argument supporting
> it could easily be constructed.

Thinking that the lives of animals per_se are a moral good is more an AR
idea than a non-AR one. Also, even having gotten that much agreement, it's a
huge leap to believe that the lives of animals bred as food should count as
moral points for their killers. Apart from Harrison's rubbish, the only such
argument I have heard was from Peter Singer, not a "meatarian". His argument
was strengthened by the stipulation that such animals must live idyllic
lives for their lives to be considered a net good. Such is not the case when
attempting to use the argument to make a rationalization for typical meat
production.

Dutch

unread,

May 21, 2004, 1:11:32 AM5/21/04

to

"farrell77" <farr...@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote

> As I've said before, the notion of "the side" is erroneous.
> There are many sides.

There are sides, two of them, just as clearly as if this issue were a piece
of toast. There are variations on each side, but we all fall into two
general groups, those who believe that it is moral to use animals to benefit
humanity, and those who believe that it is immoral.

usual suspect

unread,

May 21, 2004, 12:23:07 PM5/21/04

to

farrell77 wrote:
<...>

>>>>He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
>>>>hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It
>>>>was not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
>>>>eaters, and you know it.
>>>
>>>Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
>>>to defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
>>>Dreck is right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his
>>>claim is wrong?
>
> Provide exact quotes from me proving each of your
> claims.

Those were *my* statements. Re-trace the thread yourself, Boob, and see for
yourself what you wrote.

> Or alternately you could learn to read more
> carefully.

My point was that you interjected yourself in the debate to deflect
rightly-deserved criticism of a member of 'the side' when he made an exaggerated
claim. True to form, you showed your complete spinelessness on the *substance*
of the issue at hand:

Is it actually supported by a majority of meat eaters? I don't know.
I'm just saying it may be.

-- Lying Cocksucker and Terminal Sophist Boob Black, 14 May 04

WTF do you think "50%+1" means? Stupid.

<...>

ipse dixit

unread,

May 21, 2004, 1:12:01 PM5/21/04

to

"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message news:L1qrc.9336$Hh....@fe1.texas.rr.com...

> farrell77 wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>He asked you for a sample, shitbag, not more sophistry to try to
> >>>>hand-wave away the fact that Dreck simply FABRICATED his number. It
> >>>>was not an "estimate" in any way; Dreck is simply trying to smear meat
> >>>>eaters, and you know it.
> >>>
> >>>Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
> >>>to defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
> >>>Dreck is right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his
> >>>claim is wrong?
> >
> > Provide exact quotes from me proving each of your
> > claims.
>
> Those were *my* statements. Re-trace the thread yourself, Boob, and see for
> yourself what you wrote.
>
> > Or alternately you could learn to read more
> > carefully.
>
> My point was that you interjected yourself in the debate to deflect
> rightly-deserved criticism of a member of 'the side' when he made an exaggerated
> claim.

Then, if my claim of "most" warranted "rightly-deserved
criticism", why doesn't Jon's statement, "All "vegans"
commit this fallacy. It is at the core of "veganism".
http://tinyurl.com/yw3m9 deserve the same?

usual suspect

unread,

May 21, 2004, 1:39:03 PM5/21/04

to

farrell77 wrote:
<...>
>>>That's why I say the proposition is not unreasonable.
>>
>>Quantify it or shut up. That's the issue.
>
> I don't think it's very easily quantifiable, if at all.
> That's why I'm not making a claim that requires
> quantification.

You stuck your ugly nose into the thread to tell others they're wrong but you

just can't tell them why. THAT, Boob, is why I wrote:
Isn't it strange (and stupid) how that lying asshole jumps into the fray
to defend a member of 'the side' only to state that he doesn't know if
Dreck is right or wrong, but that everyone asking Dreck to support his
claim is wrong?

<...>

Dutch

unread,

May 21, 2004, 2:06:17 PM5/21/04

to

"ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote
>
> "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote.
> > farrell77 wrote:

> > My point was that you interjected yourself in the debate to deflect
> > rightly-deserved criticism of a member of 'the side' when he made an
exaggerated
> > claim.
>
> Then, if my claim of "most" warranted "rightly-deserved
> criticism", why doesn't Jon's statement, "All "vegans"
> commit this fallacy. It is at the core of "veganism".
> http://tinyurl.com/yw3m9 deserve the same?

Because it's a different statement. The "logic" you are attempting to invoke
is that it is inconsistent to claim statement Y is exaggerated if you don't
also claim that statement X, and presumably all other statements are
exaggerated. This is typical of the superficiality of your arguments.

ipse dixit

unread,

May 21, 2004, 4:18:00 PM5/21/04

to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:10ashb3...@news.supernews.com...

> "ipse dixit" <f...@chance.com> wrote
> > "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote.
> > > farrell77 wrote:
>
> > > My point was that you interjected yourself in the
> > > debate to deflect rightly-deserved criticism of a
> > > member of 'the side' when he made an exaggerated
> > > claim.
> >
> > Then, if my claim of "most" warranted "rightly-deserved
> > criticism", why doesn't Jon's statement, "All "vegans"
> > commit this fallacy. It is at the core of "veganism".
> > http://tinyurl.com/yw3m9 deserve the same?
>
> Because it's a different statement.

"usual suspect" is trying to suggest that my 50%+1
estimate earns "rightly-deserved criticism" and that
Bob shouldn't have "interjected" himself in the debate
to deflect that criticism from "an exaggerated claim".
My point is that if my claim of "most" earns "rightly-
deserved criticism" why doesn't Jon's exaggerated
claim of "all" deserve the same, if not more of that
criticism?

[..]