Re: I might be getting
T h � M u n t d r � g g � r
> Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> Because I like wild animals, I want to see hunting with hounds back.
>>
>> How can anyone claim to like wild animals yet be prepared to see them
>> treated cruelly?
>
> How can anyone suggest that I want to see animals treated cruelly?
Because *amazingly* you think chasing them on horseback with a pack of
baying hounds is acceptable.
> As I've pointed out, there are more of any hunted species in areas
> where there is hunting.
Hardly, unless your talking about stocked game birds. Surely the idea
of hunting foxes, is to reduce numbers
> How can you be in favour of getting rid of hunting, when getting rid
> of hunting is proven to reduce the number of hunted animals?
Tell it to the Dodo
> Hunting is good for the wildlife - more foxes get to live for longer
> in hunting areas.
Only on planet Rowland does killing something make it live longer
i> More leopards get to live for longer in hunting areas.
So we should hunt endangered species ?
> Why do you want to see a reduction in such wildlife? What have you
> got against leopards and lions and foxes and so on?
Yes, its every wild animals right to be killed viciously by packs
of baying hounds
>>> Yes, in the case of deer hunting too. Hunting with hounds is more
>>> respectful to the animals than culling them with a rifle shot to the
>>> head, which I find a truly disgusting way to end the life of a wild
>>> animal.
>>
>> Would you rather be set upon by hounds to be torn to pieces until you
>> are dead (you think that's respectful?)
>
> It's disrespectful to shoot the buggers, yes. And also disrespectful
> to poison them and trap them.
So don't do any of them. Why not just admire them and let the, live ?
> It's both natural and respectful to hunt them with hounds - if they
> get away, all well and good. If they get caught, the end is very
> quick and painless from what I've seen of it.
So a regular hunt goer are your Rowly. Tally ho !!
> The process is natural and respectful - quite unlike poisoning or
> trapping or shooting.
Yep I'm sure foxes being torn limb from limb in screaming agony would
completely ageee
> Foxes mostly get poisoned or trapped, btw. It's only deer that they
> shoot (on the whole).
Which shows just how little you know
> I'd much rather be hunted and torn to pieces by dogs (if I were fox
> sized) than poisoned or trapped.
My and my Jack Russell would be happy to oblige you at any time.
> Once the dogs have you, you're torn to shreds very quickly. Poison
> and trapping are both slow deaths. Shooting is slow if the gunman
> misses his mark - you never get that problem with a pack of hounds.
How very comforting
> Compared to poison, traps, and guns, dogs are a more reliably humane
> way of killing once the animal is caught from what I've seen. You've
> got a pack on an exhausted fox, and that fox is *NOT* going to end up
> wounded and in pain. It's going to end up very dead very quickly.
>
>> or killed humanely?
Quite
>
> It *IS* humane to be killed by hounds. You are setting up a false
> dichotomy.
>
Only one dich in this thread and its not me or Shade
> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
> was very quick painless deaths.
You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
No shit Sherlock
--
TheMuntDregger
dh
<TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
>> was very quick painless deaths.
Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals. They promote
no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
dogs...or cows or cats...
Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it? Okay, so it is in regards
to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. Things which produce more
suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
young and baby animals than human hunting does of course. Only humans
even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
environment, and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
"for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
that is.
>You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>
>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>
>No shit Sherlock
What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
about the animals at all. What they care about is that they are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
any animals.
Dutch
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
> <TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>
> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
> For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
> themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
���hw��f
of<p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>
>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show
quick
>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI*
hunting
>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I
saw
>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>
> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
Nice conspiracy theory, k00k.
They promote
>no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>dogs...or cows or cats...
How'd that work? Would the "animal rights" people kill them all?
<snicker>
> Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it?
Since you poasted it, it likely is :)
Okay, so it is in regards
>to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
>misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
>same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
>electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
>Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
>them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
No such thing as striking a ballance? No shades of grey?
Its an either/or situation, dimmy?
:)
> Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
>dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
>but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
>Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
>population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
>starvation, disease and nonhuman predators.
So in your first example humans *cant* provide the answer, but now you
say they are *the* answer?
Hmmm...nicely waffled, pinhead :)
Things which produce more
>suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
>young and baby animals than human hunting does of course.
When was the last time you were shot by a hunter? You seem to have some
inside info on the suffering thing. So unless you can mind meld with
the animals your claims are spurious, at best.
Only humans
>even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>environment,
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Poast spoilers,d00d! Humans take little effort at controlling their own
population.
Seriously, wtf?
and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
>Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
>"for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
>that is.
>
Your strawman is appreciated, dimmy.
Now go stand in the corner.
>>You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>>
>>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that
the
>>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>>
>>No shit Sherlock
>
Quick & painless to bleed to death running for your life?
Yer a fuckin idiot, mate.
> What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
>about the animals at all.
And *you* care so much that you show it by killing them.
LULZ!
Suck my motherfucking dick, k00k.
^_^
What they care about is that they are
>disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
>hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
>them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
>any animals.
>
A planet without humans would be a real eco-disaster huh, dimmy?
Now go stand in front of a train.
^_^
dh
>I haven't read quite so much rubbish since the last time I looked on
>usenet.
>
>I'll reiterate the important issue as you appear to have missed it:
>using a dog pack to restrain and kill wild animals is unnecessary.
>Animals pursued and captured by dogs appear to suffer distress. It is
>reasonable to make moral judgements about animal suffering when we
>humans cause that suffering. Consequently, hunting animals with dogs
>is cruel.
In some cases it is. In others it doesn't make as much difference
in regards to suffering, depending on what the dogs actually do. But
people who are opposed to hunting will often support the idea of
non-human predators. There's no doubt wolves cause more suffering than
humans with dogs, though some people don't care and sometimes even
want to deny the fact.
dh
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>dh@. pinched out a steaming pile
>of<p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show
>quick
>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI*
>hunting
>>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I
>saw
>>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>>
>> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>>For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>>themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>>represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>
>Nice conspiracy theory, k00k.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We
have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal
People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty
cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral,
practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard
the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling,
and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized
by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and
animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly
endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy;
however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal
values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the
responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship,
food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and
animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
>They promote
>>no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>>dogs...or cows or cats...
>
>How'd that work? Would the "animal rights" people kill them all?
><snicker>
_________________________________________________________
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant
... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they
drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30
seconds."
Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered
more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2833
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where
the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs,
cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia
headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs
and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent
of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death
pattern shows
no sign of changing.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter,
Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of
the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat
described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63
percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia
expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever
were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical
Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a
tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.
A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.
[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe --
reaches
U.S. shores.
''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less
than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.
People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host
of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel
from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stories/042701/new_0427010026.html
���������������������������������������������������������
. . .
> Only humans
>>even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>>environment,
>
>BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>Poast spoilers,d00d! Humans take little effort at controlling their own
>population.
>Seriously, wtf?
You misnomer huggers don't care about the animals. You only care
about the fact that you're disturbed because other humans eat meat,
wear skins, and hunt.
dh
It's an obvious fact. Though you are dishonestly trying to deny it
right now, you have acknowledged that you're aware of it in the past:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
and this where you freaked out because I pointed out the difference
between the misnomer and decent AW:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:
> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
"Dutch" replied:
Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and
go blow your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you
can find.
���������������������������������������������������������
You freaked because I clearly exposed one of the dishonesties
associated with the misnomer. You don't want people to think about it
as it truly is.
T h e M u n t D r e g g e r
<dh@.> wrote in message news:p9ci4514jegpnbn5e...@4ax.com...
Serlock ?????
Dyslexia is such a bitch (lol)
--
Munty
T h e M u n t D r e g g e r
"���hw��f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2d658$bug$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Agreed Snuh,
I didn't much care one way or the other until a hunt road over my land
without permission.
I didn't see any local people, just a load of public school gits in red
coats who had about
as much regard for other peoples property or feelings as they did about
foxes.
Thank God for hosepipes, although the huntards didn't think that. Nothing
like soaking a
fuckwit to bring it back down to Earth with a bang. Also held 5 foxhounds to
ransome
in my pigsty against damages to my fences and paddock.
Now the old fox (for he is a damn great big dog fox) has made my paddock his
own (and
my bloody dustbin). He's a cheeky fucker with a taste for cat food lol. He's
not exactly
tame, just very bold, and will eat the bloody catfood outside the backdoor
within
sight of me. However, he's a very impressive chap in brilliant condition and
what looks
like a smile on his face lol
--
Munty
Dutch
>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>
>>Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>
> It's an obvious fact.
Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
incompatible goals.
The fact that many animals that would_have existed would not is not relevant
or important, except to us as consumers.
It would be no loss to THEM, because THEY would never exist in the first
place.
It would be no loss in the number of animals overall because wildlife
numbers would swell due to the extra resources.
It would be no loss in species diversity because livestock are artificial
species.
It's a stupid, meaningless argument.
���hw��f
pile of<h2fuff$4lk$1...@tioat.net>:
Townies claiming some kind of tradition would be "lost" without their
blood-sport.
Heh.
>Thank God for hosepipes, although the huntards didn't think that.
Nothing
>like soaking a
>fuckwit to bring it back down to Earth with a bang. Also held 5
foxhounds to
>ransome
>in my pigsty against damages to my fences and paddock.
>
Sounds reasonable :)
>Now the old fox (for he is a damn great big dog fox) has made my
paddock his
>own (and
>my bloody dustbin). He's a cheeky fucker with a taste for cat food
lol. He's
>not exactly
>tame, just very bold, and will eat the bloody catfood outside the
backdoor
>within
>sight of me. However, he's a very impressive chap in brilliant
condition and
>what looks
>like a smile on his face lol
>
Nice picture in my head of that.
^_^
dh
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:30 +0100, Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>>>><TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>>>painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox.
>
>This is contrary to previous claims by this poster that he'd never seen
>a live kill and wasn't going to watch any videos because he 'knew' that
>hounds killed foxes efficiently. Not a credible witness.
>There's a strong correlation, for no-brainer and evolutionary reasons,
>between solitary predators and efficient predation, and pack animals and
>inefficient predation.
>
>Hunting foxes with a single hound is still legal because a single hound
>is not able to catch and overpower a healthy fox on its own, but it can
> flush out a fox to be shot by a marksman.
>
>Wolves operate in smaller packs than hounds and are somewhat more
>efficient predators. A claim that they cause more suffering per kill is
>very unlikely.
They live in the area with their prey and cause them to live in
fear a much greater percentage of the time of the time than dogs do.
So of course why do you want people to believe it's different than it
is, and how do you want them to think it's different?
>In any case, wolves kill to survive, hounds kill to
>provide fun for their owners, so the ethical and moral cases are
>substantially different.
Not for the prey animals, the wolves or the dogs, so for whom do
you think it is different and why do you think that should matter more
than how it matters to the prey?
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>
>>>Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>
>> It's an obvious fact.
>
>Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>incompatible goals.
The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals, so you have
only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
Dutch
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:28:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>> Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>> It's an obvious fact.
>> Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>> incompatible goals.
>
> The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals
The use of livestock animals as food is the elimination of
domestic animals.
AR is the elimination of animal domestication.
> so you have
> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
There is no misnomer
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:28:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>> Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>>> It's an obvious fact.
>>> Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>>> incompatible goals.
>>
>> The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals
>
>The use of livestock animals as food is the elimination of
>domestic animals.
No, you poor idiot.
>AR is the elimination of animal domestication.
That's where the obvious misnomer part comes in.
>> so you have
>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>
>There is no misnomer
LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
you have convinced me of that.
dh
>Is there any evidence that prey live in fear when there is no
>perceptible immediate threat?
Whenever they fear a threat that's not immediate there is, yes.
One example I witnessed was of a little bird trying to eat something
out in the open. If it was aware of an immediate threat it would have
flown somewhere else or hidden in the area. Since is was not aware of
one but always afraid of one showing up it had a pattern: In quick
snappy movements it would look to one side, then the other, then back
the first way, then take one peck of the food...then repeat. In
contrast to that obvious constant fear of attack spending 3/4 of its
eating time not eating but looking for an attacker, most domestic
birds like chickens never even experience such fear much less does it
rule their entire lives.
>>>In any case, wolves kill to survive, hounds kill to
>>>provide fun for their owners, so the ethical and moral cases are
>>>substantially different.
>>
>>
>> Not for the prey animals, the wolves or the dogs, so for whom do
>> you think it is different and why do you think that should matter more
>> than how it matters to the prey?
>
>Because humans are supposed to be the creatures with the time and
>intellectual faculties to have a conscience.
Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
with dogs.
>Causing unnecessary pain
>and suffering to lower animals is a step towards becoming emotionally
>detached to pain and suffering of higher animals
That's why I explained that misnomer huggers don't care how
anti-hunting can be worse for the prey animals than human hunting is.
>and eventually other humans.
By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
people undoubtedly contribute to the future suffering of countless
humans and other animals:
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research
funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.
Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.
Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.
7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.
There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.
Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.
Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and
many others would join the two million people already killed by the
disease.
Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have
died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia,
rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to
animal research.
http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research
hasimproved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation,
improved cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart
disease, brain disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field,
the prevention of genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only
because of humane work on animals.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing
their assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of
"experiments" banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
...
Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people
believe that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie.
Animals do not give information that is 100% accurate when applied to
humans, but they do provide invaluable information that cannot be
replaced by computer modelling, cell culture or human experimentation.
Mice have virtually the same genes as humans, which is why they are so
useful for exploring human physiology.
Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for
physiology or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they
could not have made their discoveries without animals. Polio would
still be claiming hundreds of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for
animal research by the Nobel laureate Albert Sabin. "There could have
been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals," he
once said."
...
The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of
animal research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects
were revealed, the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on
pregnant animals for the first time. Birth defects were quickly seen
in mice and rabbits. This prompted an overhaul of the legislation and
is the basis for our laws on drug development.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1786503,00.html#article_continue
���������������������������������������������������������
purpleveggie
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
fucking hell man do you seriously expect anyone to read all this crap?
Dutch
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:28:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>>> Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>>>> It's an obvious fact.
>>>> Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>>>> incompatible goals.
>>> The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals
>> The use of livestock animals as food is the elimination of
>> domestic animals.
>
> No, you poor idiot.
How do you think we eat meat without eliminating domestic
animals?
>> AR is the elimination of animal domestication.
>
> That's where the obvious misnomer part comes in.
There's no misnomer, just a childish play on words by you.
>>> so you have
>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>> There is no misnomer
>
> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
> you have convinced me of that.
No misnomer, you're an idiot.
Dutch
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> purpleveggie wrote:
>
>> On 7 July, 11:24, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:29 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
>>> consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
>>> that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
>>> with dogs.
>
> higher intellect" type of argument.
>
>>> By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
>>> people
>
>
>> fucking hell man do you seriously expect anyone to read all this crap?
>
> logically through long-windedness?
>
> Evil Nigel
>
Bingo! Give this man a ceegar.
purpleveggie
> Seen this before? An attempt to camouflage an inability to reason
> logically through long-windedness?
an attempt (which succeeded)in trying to bore the crap out of me!!
§ñühw¤£f
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> purpleveggie wrote:
>
> >
> >>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:29 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
> >>consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
> >>that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
> >>with dogs.
>
> higher intellect" type of argument.
>
> >>people
>
>
>
> logically through long-windedness?
>
testing that led to the thalidomide births, mate?
Thalidomide was extensively tested on animals. Then released to the public.
There were no unusual deviations in the births of the animals it was tested
upon. So much for using animals as human counterparts in biomedicine.
Just a little heads up for you. Oh, and I can back up *my* assertions with
plenty of CITEs.
^_^
--
http://www.milksucks.com/pus.asp
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
§ñühw¤£f
illness and research, with dummies like him :)
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:28:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>>>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>>>> Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>>>>> It's an obvious fact.
>>>>> Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>>>>> incompatible goals.
>>>> The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals
>>> The use of livestock animals as food is the elimination of
>>> domestic animals.
>>
>> No, you poor idiot.
>
>How do you think we eat meat without eliminating domestic
>animals?
The way it's being done.
>>> AR is the elimination of animal domestication.
>>
>> That's where the obvious misnomer part comes in.
>
>There's no misnomer,
That's a lie.
>just a childish play on words by you.
>
>
>>>> so you have
>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>> There is no misnomer
>>
>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
>> you have convinced me of that.
>
>No misnomer
That's still a lie.
Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
(answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
to see happen)
dh
If someone cares they will. If they don't, then they won't. I
present the information in case someone comes along who already gives
a shit or could learn to, not for those of you who can't care at all.
dh
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>purpleveggie wrote:
>
>> On 7 July, 11:24, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:39:29 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Some of us are able to think it through to the point that we
>>>consider how the animals themselves are influenced. Doing that reveals
>>>that wolves are much worse for the prey animals than human hunters
>>>with dogs.
>
>Aha, the "throw in an unsubstantiable claim purporting to be from a
>higher intellect" type of argument.
>
>>> By supporting misnomer terrorism against medical research you
>>>people
>
>Aha, I'm now part of a "you people" based on no evidence whatsoever.
Most of the people who oppose considering the influence misnomer
huggers want to have on animals, are misnomer huggers themselves. In
fact from my experience they are the ONLY people who want to oppose
it, which is very strong evidence to me that you must be one yourself.
Dutch
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:20:21 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:09:52 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:28:45 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> They use the term "animal rights" to
>>>>>>>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>>>>> Some day the stupidity of that accusation may dawn on you.
>>>>>>> It's an obvious fact.
>>>>>> Animal rights and the elimination of animal *domestication* are not
>>>>>> incompatible goals.
>>>>> The misnomer IS the elimination of domestic animals
>>>> The use of livestock animals as food is the elimination of
>>>> domestic animals.
>>> No, you poor idiot.
>> How do you think we eat meat without eliminating domestic
>> animals?
>
> The way it's being done.
>
>>>> AR is the elimination of animal domestication.
>>> That's where the obvious misnomer part comes in.
>> There's no misnomer,
>
> That's a lie.
It's a fact.
>> just a childish play on words by you.
>>
>>
>>>>> so you have
>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>> There is no misnomer
>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
>>> you have convinced me of that.
>> No misnomer
>
> That's still a lie.
No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist as a
category/class of animal. If that were to happen, then to
the extent that the keeping of livestock violates some basic
rights of animals, the cause of "Animal Rights" would be
advanced, not impeded.
I wish I could explain this in A-B-C terms that you might be
able to understand, but that is as simple as it gets.
Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
misnomer, is ridiculous.
Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
have descendants.
> Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
> misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
There is no misnomer, there is the elimination of the class
of animals known as livestock and there is animal welfare,
they are NOT the same. They ARE NOT however, incompatible.
>
> (answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
> organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
> to see happen)
The reason I am opposing what you say is because it is
nonsense. Nothing you are saying makes any difference to the
contributors to PeTA, or anyone else for that matter.
Dutch
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:16:30 -0700 (PDT), purpleveggie
>> fucking hell man do you seriously expect anyone to read all this crap?
>
> If someone cares they will. If they don't, then they won't. I
> present the information in case someone comes along who already gives
> a shit or could learn to, not for those of you who can't care at all.
If you want people to start caring what you put out then
start using the brain your God gave you and stop spinning
all your grade-school bullshit.
Dutch
People challenge you because your statements are
unintelligible hogwash, for no other reason.
dh
Why do you--so horribly dishonestly--want people to think that
providing livestock with decent lives and preventing livestock from
living is the same exact thing?
(answer: so more money will be contributed to the misnomer)
>>> just a childish play on words by you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>> No misnomer
>>
>> That's still a lie.
>
>No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
would somehow provide "them" with rights?
>as a
>category/class of animal. If that were to happen, then to
>the extent that the keeping of livestock violates some basic
>rights of animals, the cause of "Animal Rights" would be
>advanced, not impeded.
>
>I wish I could explain this in A-B-C terms that you might be
>able to understand, but that is as simple as it gets.
A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>misnomer, is ridiculous.
>
>Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>have descendants.
>
>> Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
>> misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
>
>There is no misnomer,
Why do you want so very badly and horribly dishonestly for people
to believe that? Oh yeah, so more contributions will go toward the
misnomer.
>there is the elimination of the class
>of animals known as livestock and there is animal welfare,
>they are NOT the same.
No they are damn sure not. How unusual to see a tiny flicker of
honesty from you.
>They ARE NOT however, incompatible.
>
>>
>> (answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
>> organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
>> to see happen)
>
>The reason I am opposing what you say is because it is
>nonsense. Nothing you are saying makes any difference to the
>contributors to PeTA, or anyone else for that matter.
It would be significant to anyone who wants to contribute to
decent AW with their lifestyle, but not to those of you who are
opposed to seeing anyone do that of course. People like yourself are
opposed to seeing anyone try to contribute to decent lives with their
lifestyle because it works directly AGAINST the misnomer.
dh
LOL! From my experience the ONLY people who want to oppose
criticism of misnomer terrorism have been misnomer huggers themselves.
Also, the only people who have opposed consideration of the animals
lives have been misnomer huggers. There were 3 misnomer opponents who
said they disagreed that the animals should be taken into
consideration, but two of them gave no reason for that at all and one
of them only used arguments that he himself pointed out were misnomer
arguments.
dh
LOL! How could I get you misnomer huggers to care about the lives
of animals you wish did not exist, and that you want to prevent from
living in the future?
(answer: you don't and can't care, and you're not going to all of a
sudden start caring just because I present the suggestion in a
different way)
Dutch
I've never said anything of the sort. PeTA doesn't say that.
They are two separate and not incompatible agendas.
> (answer: so more money will be contributed to the misnomer)
There is no misnomer, just a childish play on words by you.
>>>>>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
>>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>>> No misnomer
>>> That's still a lie.
>> No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>> the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
>
> Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
> would somehow provide "them" with rights?
How could anybody think that? How do expect anyone to take
you seriously when you make such nonsensical statements?
>> as a
>> category/class of animal. If that were to happen, then to
>> the extent that the keeping of livestock violates some basic
>> rights of animals, the cause of "Animal Rights" would be
>> advanced, not impeded.
>>
>> I wish I could explain this in A-B-C terms that you might be
>> able to understand, but that is as simple as it gets.
>
> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
Yes they do. There is legislation in many countries
sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
Nonsense, you're being ridiculous. There are several
different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
"Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
"animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
of any particular, specific animal or animals. "Animal
Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>
>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>
>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>> have descendants.
You didn't understand that did you?
>>
>>> Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
>>> misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
>> There is no misnomer,
>
> Why do you want so very badly and horribly dishonestly for people
> to believe that? Oh yeah, so more contributions will go toward the
> misnomer.
No misnomer.
>
>> there is the elimination of the class
>> of animals known as livestock and there is animal welfare,
>> they are NOT the same.
>
> No they are damn sure not. How unusual to see a tiny flicker of
> honesty from you.
I never said they were the same, nobody does. That is YOUR
strawman.
>
>> They ARE NOT however, incompatible.
>>
>>> (answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
>>> organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
>>> to see happen)
>> The reason I am opposing what you say is because it is
>> nonsense. Nothing you are saying makes any difference to the
>> contributors to PeTA, or anyone else for that matter.
>
> It would be significant to anyone who wants to contribute to
> decent AW with their lifestyle,
No it wouldn't. People who want to do that just buy
certified organic and other types of free range meat.
Nothing you are saying bears any importance to that.
> but not to those of you who are
> opposed to seeing anyone do that of course. People like yourself are
> opposed to seeing anyone try to contribute to decent lives with their
> lifestyle because it works directly AGAINST the misnomer.
There is no misnomer, you made that up and now you can't
give it up, you're painted into a corner.
There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
pursued. Those people are at odds with most AR advocates,
such as Rupert. Just as the Logic of the Larder
unintentionally and indirectly promotes the notion that
animals have a "right to life", this "misnomer" nonsense
unintentionally puts you in the same camp as the most
extreme ARAs.
It is, sadly, the fallout from gross stupidity.
Dutch
You're just hopelessly confused, and I can't laugh about it,
because it's pitiful.
Dutch
You're right for once, nobody is going to ever start caring
that if we stopped eating meat some imaginary animals would
never get to exist. Somehow you convinced yourself that this
was meaningful and now it's like a brain pathology with you.
tha artist
> Wild boar were hunted in Britain by men with dogs, and in Eastern Europe
> by men with dogs and wolves. Hunting by wolves is bad for prey whereas
> hunting by men with dogs is good, hence wild boar are extinct in Eastern
> Europe and thriving in Britain.
>
> dh@.'s logic must be right because he's told us he has a superior
> intellect, so I'll go out tomorrow and erect stout fences so all those
> wild boar don't get at my veggies
>
> Evil Nigel
The wolves are worrying me
dh
Then it sounds like you should never try to act like they are the
same or even similar again.
>PeTA doesn't say that.
> They are two separate and not incompatible agendas.
>
>
>
>> (answer: so more money will be contributed to the misnomer)
>
>There is no misnomer,
That's an extremely blatant lie.
>just a childish play on words by you.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt both,
>>>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>>>> No misnomer
>>>> That's still a lie.
>>> No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>>> the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
>>
>> Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
>> would somehow provide "them" with rights?
>
>How could anybody think that?
You're the one who wants to create the impression which is why I
asked YOU how you think it could be done.
>How do expect anyone to take
>you seriously when you make such nonsensical statements?
>
>
>>> as a
>>> category/class of animal. If that were to happen, then to
>>> the extent that the keeping of livestock violates some basic
>>> rights of animals, the cause of "Animal Rights" would be
>>> advanced, not impeded.
>>>
>>> I wish I could explain this in A-B-C terms that you might be
>>> able to understand, but that is as simple as it gets.
>>
>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>
>Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>
>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>
>Yes they do.
LOL!
>There is legislation in many countries
>sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>
>Nonsense,
That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
and different lie, I believe.
>you're being ridiculous. There are several
>different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>"Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>"animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>of any particular, specific animal or animals.
It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>"Animal
>Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>
>>
>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>> have descendants.
>
>You didn't understand that did you?
It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
>>>> Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
>>>> misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
>>> There is no misnomer,
>>
>> Why do you want so very badly and horribly dishonestly for people
>> to believe that? Oh yeah, so more contributions will go toward the
>> misnomer.
>
>No misnomer.
There's that lie again.
>>> there is the elimination of the class
>>> of animals known as livestock and there is animal welfare,
>>> they are NOT the same.
>>
>> No they are damn sure not. How unusual to see a tiny flicker of
>> honesty from you.
>
>I never said they were the same, nobody does. That is YOUR
>strawman.
>
>
>>
>>> They ARE NOT however, incompatible.
>>>
>>>> (answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
>>>> organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
>>>> to see happen)
>>> The reason I am opposing what you say is because it is
>>> nonsense. Nothing you are saying makes any difference to the
>>> contributors to PeTA, or anyone else for that matter.
>>
>> It would be significant to anyone who wants to contribute to
>> decent AW with their lifestyle,
>
>No it wouldn't.
That's a lie.
>People who want to do that just buy
>certified organic and other types of free range meat.
>Nothing you are saying bears any importance to that.
>
>> but not to those of you who are
>> opposed to seeing anyone do that of course. People like yourself are
>> opposed to seeing anyone try to contribute to decent lives with their
>> lifestyle because it works directly AGAINST the misnomer.
>
>There is no misnomer,
There is that lie again.
>you made that up and now you can't
>give it up, you're painted into a corner.
>
>There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>pursued.
LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
elimination objective.
>Those people are at odds with most AR advocates,
LOL!!!!! That's because mot of them are dishonest, like you.
>such as Rupert. Just as the Logic of the Larder
>unintentionally and indirectly promotes the notion that
>animals have a "right to life",
That's a lie. And what a stupid idea!!! WHICH animals are you
dishonestly trying to claim it promotes that notion for???
>this "misnomer" nonsense
>unintentionally puts you in the same camp as the most
>extreme ARAs.
LOL. That mess between your ears is an amusing little clown, no
doubt. It's amusing to see you refer to your more honest and realistic
fellow children of the misnomer as "extreme". I remember you found
fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
so honest about it.
dh
There's nothing to be confused about you idiot. Two of them had
NOTHING! Meaning that they didn't make any attempt at all. In two of
the three there was nothing to even consider. The third presented
almost nothing but misnomer arguments which I disagree with, the he
acted like he disagreed with the majority of them himself. That being
the case he had NOTHING either. In nine years I have never encountered
any good opposition, as I've pointed out many times.
dh
The misnomer that eliminationists use: "ar", when applied to
domestic animals dishonestly suggests they would be provided with
rights which would give them decent lives of positive value, but
instead they would not exist and such animals would never experience
life at all. ONLY people in favor of the misnomer's success would be
opposed to seeing that reality made clear, which clearly reveals you
as being in favor of the misnomer.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:20rm55lgnef5s9v7v...@4ax.com...
I have always said that AR and AW are completely different issues. Some
people support both, that is not inconsistent.
>>PeTA doesn't say that.
>> They are two separate and not incompatible agendas.
>>
>>
>>
>>> (answer: so more money will be contributed to the misnomer)
>>
>>There is no misnomer,
>
> That's an extremely blatant lie.
It's the truth,
>
>>just a childish play on words by you.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt
>>>>>>> both,
>>>>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>>>>> No misnomer
>>>>> That's still a lie.
>>>> No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>>>> the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
>>>
>>> Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
>>> would somehow provide "them" with rights?
>>
>>How could anybody think that?
>
> You're the one who wants to create the impression which is why I
> asked YOU how you think it could be done.
That's a strawman, your silly little *not* clever play on words
>>How do expect anyone to take
>>you seriously when you make such nonsensical statements?
>>
>>
>>>> as a
>>>> category/class of animal. If that were to happen, then to
>>>> the extent that the keeping of livestock violates some basic
>>>> rights of animals, the cause of "Animal Rights" would be
>>>> advanced, not impeded.
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could explain this in A-B-C terms that you might be
>>>> able to understand, but that is as simple as it gets.
>>>
>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>
>>Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>
>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>
>>Yes they do.
>
> LOL!
Brilliant
>
>>There is legislation in many countries
>>sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
>
> The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
> right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>
>>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>>
>>Nonsense,
>
> That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
> and different lie, I believe.
You believe stupid incoherent things.
>
>>you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>"Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>"animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>
> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
So what, we plan on killing them anyway.
>
>>"Animal
>>Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>>laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>>cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>>
>>>
>>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>>> have descendants.
>>
>>You didn't understand that did you?
>
> It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
> that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
You're the one making an issue of "elimination" as if it mattered.
>
>>>>> Why do you want so very desperately for people to think of the
>>>>> misnomer and decent AW in the same way?
>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>>
>>> Why do you want so very badly and horribly dishonestly for people
>>> to believe that? Oh yeah, so more contributions will go toward the
>>> misnomer.
>>
>>No misnomer.
>
> There's that lie again.
Fact, no misnomer.
>
>>>> there is the elimination of the class
>>>> of animals known as livestock and there is animal welfare,
>>>> they are NOT the same.
>>>
>>> No they are damn sure not. How unusual to see a tiny flicker of
>>> honesty from you.
>>
>>I never said they were the same, nobody does. That is YOUR
>>strawman.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> They ARE NOT however, incompatible.
>>>>
>>>>> (answer: because doing so means more money is contributed to misnomer
>>>>> organizations, which is something you've made very clear that you like
>>>>> to see happen)
>>>> The reason I am opposing what you say is because it is
>>>> nonsense. Nothing you are saying makes any difference to the
>>>> contributors to PeTA, or anyone else for that matter.
>>>
>>> It would be significant to anyone who wants to contribute to
>>> decent AW with their lifestyle,
>>
>>No it wouldn't.
>
> That's a lie.
Nope
>
>>People who want to do that just buy
>>certified organic and other types of free range meat.
>>Nothing you are saying bears any importance to that.
>>
>>> but not to those of you who are
>>> opposed to seeing anyone do that of course. People like yourself are
>>> opposed to seeing anyone try to contribute to decent lives with their
>>> lifestyle because it works directly AGAINST the misnomer.
>>
>>There is no misnomer,
>
> There is that lie again.
Nope
>
>>you made that up and now you can't
>>give it up, you're painted into a corner.
>>
>>There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>>welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>>pursued.
>
> LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
> obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
> elimination objective.
Not in the way you imagine.
>
>>Those people are at odds with most AR advocates,
>
> LOL!!!!! That's because mot of them are dishonest, like you.
I'm not one.
>
>>such as Rupert. Just as the Logic of the Larder
>>unintentionally and indirectly promotes the notion that
>>animals have a "right to life",
>
> That's a lie. And what a stupid idea!!! WHICH animals are you
> dishonestly trying to claim it promotes that notion for???
The animals who won't "get to experience life" if "elimination" happens, the
ones whose cause you are championing.
>>this "misnomer" nonsense
>>unintentionally puts you in the same camp as the most
>>extreme ARAs.
>
> LOL. That mess between your ears is an amusing little clown, no
> doubt. It's amusing to see you refer to your more honest and realistic
> fellow children of the misnomer as "extreme". I remember you found
> fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
> to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
> consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
> so honest about it.
He was correct in declaring that the advocates of the LoL use "decent lives"
as a smokescreen for their shabby sophism, you prove that.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:6asm55lcfvdgthh9m...@4ax.com...
Yet you continue..
dh
><dh@.> pointed out:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>
>>>There is no misnomer,
>>
>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>
>It's the truth,
There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
>>>just a childish play on words by you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>>>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>>>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt
>>>>>>>> both,
>>>>>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>>>>>> No misnomer
>>>>>> That's still a lie.
>>>>> No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>>>>> the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
>>>> would somehow provide "them" with rights?
>>>
>>>How could anybody think that?
>>
>> You're the one who wants to create the impression which is why I
>> asked YOU how you think it could be done.
>
>That's a strawman,
LOL! The misnomer now has a character to represent it. LOL...but
let's make it a strawgirl: MisNomer. That fits too, because it appears
that the majority of people who are naive enough to put their faith in
MisNomer are women.
. . .
>>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>
>>>Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>>livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>>
>>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>>
>>>Yes they do.
>>
>> LOL!
>
>Brilliant
It was another occasion when I was amused by the blatancy of one
of your lies. For years I laughed more at the Goober than at anything
else in my life, and many times I enjoyed the idiocy his most blatant
lie which was to lie that he didn't lie. It did get old eventually,
but it was so stupid and blatanly dishonest that I was quite amused by
it for several years.
>>>There is legislation in many countries
>>>sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
>>
>> The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
>> right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>>
>>>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>>>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>>>
>>>Nonsense,
>>
>> That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
>> and different lie, I believe.
>
>You believe stupid incoherent things.
If you think it's a separate lie instead of a variation on the
first, then just explain how you think it is instead of saying
something to make yourself look even more clueless, like you did.
Well, it's too late and you already did that, but try explaining how
you think it's a different lie and then maybe it will apear that you
have some clue what you think you were trying to talk about. Go:
>>>you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>"Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>"animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>
>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>
>So what,
It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
>we plan on killing them anyway.
>
>>
>>>"Animal
>>>Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>>>laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>>>cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>>>> have descendants.
>>>
>>>You didn't understand that did you?
>>
>> It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
>> that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
>
>You're the one making an issue of "elimination" as if it mattered.
Because it proves the dishonesty of MisNomer. If the dishonesty of
MisNomer doesn't matter to you, then you should have no objection to
seeing me point it out. Since you obviously DO have a problem with me
pointing it out, that means you are in favor of the dishonesty
associated with MisNomer, but you do NOT want to see it exposed.
. . .
>>>There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>>>welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>>>pursued.
>>
>> LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
>> obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
>> elimination objective.
>
>Not in the way you imagine.
1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
to see such animals eliminated?
. . .
>> I remember you found
>> fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
>> to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
>> consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
>> so honest about it.
>
>He was correct in declaring that the advocates of the LoL use "decent lives"
>as a smokescreen
He said nothing of the kind you lying shit. He told the truth, and
you hate that. The fact that you're lying again now is because you
hate the fact that he told the truth. LOL! In fact I've often felt
that his honesty about that particular issue, has been something you
people have felt cursed by since he was honest enough to have said it.
TOO BAD FOR YOU PEOPLE! LOL!!! Really from the "other side" it is
hilarious that one of the few things one of your representatives have
said that is actually true, is something you people consider to be
such a horrible curse for your cause. LOL...
Dutch
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "Dutch" repeated the lie:
>
>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>
>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>> It's the truth,
>
> There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
In order for "animal rights" to be a misnomer it must deny
some rights to animals. Which animal rights would be denied
by the cessation of livestock farming?
>>>> just a childish play on words by you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you have
>>>>>>>>>>> only pointed out how it's a misnomer.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no misnomer
>>>>>>>>> LOL. You poor idiot. Could you really be that stupid? I still
>>>>>>>>> believe you're more dishonest than stupid, but you ARE no doubt
>>>>>>>>> both,
>>>>>>>>> you have convinced me of that.
>>>>>>>> No misnomer
>>>>>>> That's still a lie.
>>>>>> No. "Animal Rights" specifically and without guile includes
>>>>>> the notion that "livestock" will cease to exist
>>>>> Why do you want people to think that causing them not to exist
>>>>> would somehow provide "them" with rights?
>>>> How could anybody think that?
>>> You're the one who wants to create the impression which is why I
>>> asked YOU how you think it could be done.
>> That's a strawman,
>
> LOL! The misnomer now has a character to represent it. LOL...but
> let's make it a strawgirl: MisNomer. That fits too, because it appears
> that the majority of people who are naive enough to put their faith in
> MisNomer are women.
Which animal rights would be denied by the cessation of
livestock farming?
> . . .
>>>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>> Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>>> livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>>>
>>>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>>> Yes they do.
>>> LOL!
>> Brilliant
>
> It was another occasion when I was amused by the blatancy of one
> of your lies. For years I laughed more at the Goober than at anything
> else in my life, and many times I enjoyed the idiocy his most blatant
> lie which was to lie that he didn't lie. It did get old eventually,
> but it was so stupid and blatanly dishonest that I was quite amused by
> it for several years.
ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals, there are
countless examples of it.
They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
decently. That does not constitute any "misnomer".
>
>>>> There is legislation in many countries
>>>> sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
>>> The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
>>> right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>>>
>>>>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>>>>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>>>> Nonsense,
>>> That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
>>> and different lie, I believe.
>> You believe stupid incoherent things.
>
> If you think it's a separate lie instead of a variation on the
> first, then just explain how you think it is instead of saying
> something to make yourself look even more clueless, like you did.
> Well, it's too late and you already did that, but try explaining how
> you think it's a different lie and then maybe it will apear that you
> have some clue what you think you were trying to talk about. Go:
You are becoming increasingly incoherent to the point where
I may have to consider it a concession.
>
>>>> you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>> different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>> "Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>> "animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>> of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>> So what,
>
> It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
> misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
There is no misnomer. AR advocates the cessation of animal
farming. That doesn't deny any animal any rights. What
rights do you believe they have that are denied by AR anyway?
>> we plan on killing them anyway.
>>
>>>> "Animal
>>>> Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>>>> laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>>>> cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>>>>
>>>>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>>>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>>>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>>>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>>>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>>>>> have descendants.
>>>> You didn't understand that did you?
>>> It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
>>> that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
>> You're the one making an issue of "elimination" as if it mattered.
>
> Because it proves the dishonesty of MisNomer. If the dishonesty of
> MisNomer doesn't matter to you, then you should have no objection to
> seeing me point it out. Since you obviously DO have a problem with me
> pointing it out, that means you are in favor of the dishonesty
> associated with MisNomer, but you do NOT want to see it exposed.
There is no dishonesty, AR openly advocates the termination
of animal farming, calling that "animal rights" is not a
misnomer.
> . . .
>>>> There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>>>> welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>>>> pursued.
>>> LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
>>> obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
>>> elimination objective.
>> Not in the way you imagine.
>
> 1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
ARAs want to give every livestock animal a life completely
free of suffering, ideally, even though they believe that to
be nearly impossible.
> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
> to see such animals eliminated?
It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
type of animal husbandry.
> . . .
>>> I remember you found
>>> fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
>>> to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
>>> consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
>>> so honest about it.
>> He was correct in declaring that the advocates of the LoL use "decent lives"
>> as a smokescreen
>
> He said nothing of the kind you lying shit.
Yes he did. He quoted the LoL as it is put forth by "LoLA's"
In that quote it includes "decent lives", which is a
smokescreen.
He told the truth, and
> you hate that. The fact that you're lying again now is because you
> hate the fact that he told the truth. LOL! In fact I've often felt
> that his honesty about that particular issue, has been something you
> people have felt cursed by since he was honest enough to have said it.
> TOO BAD FOR YOU PEOPLE! LOL!!! Really from the "other side" it is
> hilarious that one of the few things one of your representatives have
> said that is actually true, is something you people consider to be
> such a horrible curse for your cause. LOL...
If you think he told the truth then why don't you accept his
basic premise?
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "Dutch" repeated the lie:
>>
>>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>>> It's the truth,
>>
>> There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
>
>In order for "animal rights" to be a misnomer it must deny
>some rights to animals.
LOL! That's a new lie for you.
They don't have to be "denied" in order for MisNomer to be
dishonest about "her" suggestion that "she" might hope to provide one
or two.
>by the cessation of
>livestock farming?
>
>
>> . . .
>>>>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>> Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>>>> livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>>>>
>>>>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>>>> Yes they do.
>>>> LOL!
>>> Brilliant
>>
>> It was another occasion when I was amused by the blatancy of one
>> of your lies. For years I laughed more at the Goober than at anything
>> else in my life, and many times I enjoyed the idiocy his most blatant
>> lie which was to lie that he didn't lie. It did get old eventually,
>> but it was so stupid and blatanly dishonest that I was quite amused by
>> it for several years.
>
>ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>there are
>countless examples of it.
>
>They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer of course.
>but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
>on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
>decently.
You people exploit AW issues in order to obtain contributions to
fund the objective of MisNomer.
>That does not constitute any "misnomer".
That's just a repetition of your favorite blatant lie.
>>>>> There is legislation in many countries
>>>>> sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
>>>> The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
>>>> right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>>>>
>>>>>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>>>>>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>>>>> Nonsense,
>>>> That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
>>>> and different lie, I believe.
>>> You believe stupid incoherent things.
>>
>> If you think it's a separate lie instead of a variation on the
>> first, then just explain how you think it is instead of saying
>> something to make yourself look even more clueless, like you did.
>> Well, it's too late and you already did that, but try explaining how
>> you think it's a different lie and then maybe it will apear that you
>> have some clue what you think you were trying to talk about. Go:
>
>You are becoming increasingly incoherent to the point where
>I may have to consider it a concession.
You appear to be testing out a new way of losing.
>>>>> you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>>> different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>>> "Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>>> "animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>>> of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>>> So what,
>>
>> It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
>> misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
>
>There is no misnomer.
That lie doesn't become any less blatant just because you keep
telling it again and again.
>AR advocates the cessation of animal
>farming.
We know. We also know that had nothing to do with providing them
with rights.
>That doesn't deny any animal any rights. What
>rights do you believe they have that are denied by AR anyway?
>
>>> we plan on killing them anyway.
>>>
>>>>> "Animal
>>>>> Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>>>>> laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>>>>> cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>>>>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>>>>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>>>>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>>>>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>>>>>> have descendants.
>>>>> You didn't understand that did you?
>>>> It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
>>>> that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
>>> You're the one making an issue of "elimination" as if it mattered.
>>
>> Because it proves the dishonesty of MisNomer. If the dishonesty of
>> MisNomer doesn't matter to you, then you should have no objection to
>> seeing me point it out. Since you obviously DO have a problem with me
>> pointing it out, that means you are in favor of the dishonesty
>> associated with MisNomer, but you do NOT want to see it exposed.
>
>There is no dishonesty,
LOL. That's a lie.
>AR openly advocates the termination
>of animal farming,
That may be the only thing you've written in this post that's
true.
>calling that "animal rights" is not a
>misnomer.
That of course is just a variation on your new favorite lie.
>> . . .
>>>>> There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>>>>> welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>>>>> pursued.
>>>> LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
>>>> obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
>>>> elimination objective.
>>> Not in the way you imagine.
>>
>> 1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
>
>ARAs want to give every livestock animal a life completely
>free of suffering, ideally, even though they believe that to
>be nearly impossible.
>
>> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
>> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
>> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
>> to see such animals eliminated?
>
>It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
>type of animal husbandry.
The purity of you peoples' selfishness prevents you from being
able to answer the question, or even to try answering it.
>> . . .
>>>> I remember you found
>>>> fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
>>>> to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
>>>> consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
>>>> so honest about it.
>>> He was correct in declaring that the advocates of the LoL use "decent lives"
>>> as a smokescreen
>>
>> He said nothing of the kind you lying shit.
>
>Yes he did.
Liar.
>He quoted the LoL as it is put forth by "LoLA's"
>In that quote it includes "decent lives", which is a
>smokescreen.
>
> He told the truth, and
>> you hate that. The fact that you're lying again now is because you
>> hate the fact that he told the truth. LOL! In fact I've often felt
>> that his honesty about that particular issue, has been something you
>> people have felt cursed by since he was honest enough to have said it.
>> TOO BAD FOR YOU PEOPLE! LOL!!! Really from the "other side" it is
>> hilarious that one of the few things one of your representatives have
>> said that is actually true, is something you people consider to be
>> such a horrible curse for your cause. LOL...
>
>If you think he told the truth then why don't you accept his
>basic premise?
He only told the truth about one part of it, and that is the part
you people hate. You like what he lied about, because of the purity of
your selfishness. It's always the same. The only way it could change
is if you people change. Unless you do, you will always cling to the
lies.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:06:20 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "Dutch" repeated the lie:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>>>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>>>> It's the truth,
>>>
>>> There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
>>
>>In order for "animal rights" to be a misnomer it must deny
>>some rights to animals.
>
> LOL! That's a new lie for you.
It is the meaning of the word misnomer, and what you are implying, a
misnomer is something which does the opposite of what it claims to do.
"AR" advocates campaign for animal rights, if it is a misnomer as you insist
then by definition it must deny rights to some animals.
Where are these animals whose rights are being denied and what are these
alleged rights?
In order for "AR" to be a misnomer it must violate some animal rights. I'll
ask you again, what are these animal rights and where are they being
violated?
>
>>by the cessation of
>>livestock farming?
>>
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>>> Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>>>>> livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>>>>> Yes they do.
>>>>> LOL!
>>>> Brilliant
>>>
>>> It was another occasion when I was amused by the blatancy of one
>>> of your lies. For years I laughed more at the Goober than at anything
>>> else in my life, and many times I enjoyed the idiocy his most blatant
>>> lie which was to lie that he didn't lie. It did get old eventually,
>>> but it was so stupid and blatanly dishonest that I was quite amused by
>>> it for several years.
>>
>>ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>
> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
all of them, every single one.
Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
for livestock that is being violated by AR. There is no such right, and
nobody with a brain thinks there is, on either side of the argument.
>>there are
>>countless examples of it.
>>
>>They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
>
> Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer of course.
Not in the least, and you haven't shown it.
>>but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
>>on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
>>decently.
>
> You people exploit AW issues in order to obtain contributions to
> fund the objective of MisNomer.
What do you have against AW issues?
>
>>That does not constitute any "misnomer".
>
> That's just a repetition of your favorite blatant lie.
It's just a repetition of the same fact. There is no misnomer, "AR" does not
violate any alleged rights of animals.
>
>>>>>> There is legislation in many countries
>>>>>> sponsored by AR groups that does exactly that.
>>>>> The "right" to never exist is not what I consider to be an actual
>>>>> right. You people might somehow believe it is, but I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> C. Referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals in a way
>>>>>>> that claims it would provide them with rights is a gross misnomer.
>>>>>> Nonsense,
>>>>> That's a variation on your first lie more than a totally separate
>>>>> and different lie, I believe.
>>>> You believe stupid incoherent things.
>>>
>>> If you think it's a separate lie instead of a variation on the
>>> first, then just explain how you think it is instead of saying
>>> something to make yourself look even more clueless, like you did.
>>> Well, it's too late and you already did that, but try explaining how
>>> you think it's a different lie and then maybe it will apear that you
>>> have some clue what you think you were trying to talk about. Go:
>>
>>You are becoming increasingly incoherent to the point where
>>I may have to consider it a concession.
>
> You appear to be testing out a new way of losing.
You have enough lousy boilerplate responses, don't start copying them from
other idiots.
I can't be held responsible for making sense out of senseless inanities
like, "try explaining how you think it's a different lie and then maybe it
will apear that you have some clue what you think you were trying to talk
about". Who talks like that?
>>>>>> you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>>>> different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>>>> "Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>>>> "animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>>>> of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>>>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>>>> So what,
>>>
>>> It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
>>> misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
>>
>>There is no misnomer.
>
> That lie doesn't become any less blatant just because you keep
> telling it again and again.
If it is not a lie then why can't you tell me what rights of animals AR
violates?
>>AR advocates the cessation of animal
>>farming.
>
> We know.
Stop saying "we", you're alone.
> We also know that had nothing to do with providing them
> with rights.
Providing which animals with rights? How can can you accuse anyone of not
providing rights for animals that don't exist?
How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>>That doesn't deny any animal any rights. What
>>rights do you believe they have that are denied by AR anyway?
Well? If "AR" is a misnomer then it must deny rights to animals?
Which animals? Which rights?
>>>> we plan on killing them anyway.
>>>>
>>>>>> "Animal
>>>>>> Rights" can refer to those legislations, to animal welfare
>>>>>> laws or programs in general, or it can refer to the goal of
>>>>>> cessation of keeping animals in captivity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your claim that since some potential animals (livestock)
>>>>>>>> that *would exist* under the current system *would not*
>>>>>>>> exist under the "no livestock" AR regime, that constitutes a
>>>>>>>> misnomer, is ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Livestock do NOT have the right to have descendants. There
>>>>>>>> is no fundamental reason to care whether or not livestock
>>>>>>>> have descendants.
>>>>>> You didn't understand that did you?
>>>>> It's easy to understand, and is no more significant than the fact
>>>>> that dinosaurs are extinct or that rocks aren't alive.
>>>> You're the one making an issue of "elimination" as if it mattered.
>>>
>>> Because it proves the dishonesty of MisNomer. If the dishonesty of
>>> MisNomer doesn't matter to you, then you should have no objection to
>>> seeing me point it out. Since you obviously DO have a problem with me
>>> pointing it out, that means you are in favor of the dishonesty
>>> associated with MisNomer, but you do NOT want to see it exposed.
>>
>>There is no dishonesty,
>
> LOL. That's a lie.
It's a fact.
>
>>AR openly advocates the termination
>>of animal farming,
>
> That may be the only thing you've written in this post that's
> true.
Everything I've written is true.
>>calling that "animal rights" is not a
>>misnomer.
>
> That of course is just a variation on your new favorite lie.
Then answer my question. If animal rights is a misnomer then which rights
are being denied to which animals?
I know you won't answer because the answer shows how absurd you are.
The only way to make any sense out of what are saying is to assume that
future livestock have a right to exist, and therefore since AR is denying
these future animals' rights, it is a misnomer. It is one of the most
bizarre beliefs anyone could hold.
>>>>>> There is a small group of radical ARAs who believe that
>>>>>> welfare programs are counter-productive and should not be
>>>>>> pursued.
>>>>> LOL!!! That's because they are honest enough to acknowledge the
>>>>> obvious fact that such objectives NECESSARILYwork AGAINST their
>>>>> elimination objective.
>>>> Not in the way you imagine.
>>>
>>> 1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
>>
>>ARAs want to give every livestock animal a life completely
>>free of suffering, ideally, even though they believe that to
>>be nearly impossible.
I answered your question, why did you whiff?
>>> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
>>> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
>>> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
>>> to see such animals eliminated?
>>
>>It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
>>type of animal husbandry.
>
> The purity of you peoples' selfishness prevents you from being
> able to answer the question, or even to try answering it.
I answered the question, now you answer mine.
>
>>> . . .
>>>>> I remember you found
>>>>> fault with your father/brother Henry "ar" Salt for being honest enough
>>>>> to point out the fact that quality of life is a necessary
>>>>> consideration associated with the LoL. You objected to him having been
>>>>> so honest about it.
>>>> He was correct in declaring that the advocates of the LoL use "decent
>>>> lives"
>>>> as a smokescreen
>>>
>>> He said nothing of the kind you lying shit.
>>
>>Yes he did.
>
> Liar.
Nope
>
>>He quoted the LoL as it is put forth by "LoLA's"
>>In that quote it includes "decent lives", which is a
>>smokescreen.
"Decent lives" is a smokescreen. We all want decent lives for the animals in
our care.
>> He told the truth, and
>>> you hate that. The fact that you're lying again now is because you
>>> hate the fact that he told the truth. LOL! In fact I've often felt
>>> that his honesty about that particular issue, has been something you
>>> people have felt cursed by since he was honest enough to have said it.
>>> TOO BAD FOR YOU PEOPLE! LOL!!! Really from the "other side" it is
>>> hilarious that one of the few things one of your representatives have
>>> said that is actually true, is something you people consider to be
>>> such a horrible curse for your cause. LOL...
>>
>>If you think he told the truth then why don't you accept his
>>basic premise?
>
> He only told the truth about one part of it,
He told the whole truth about the Logic of the Larder and how it is circular
reasoning and therefore invalid. Where I disagree with him is in his
implication that all livestock animals suffer terrible lives.
and that is the part
> you people hate. You like what he lied about, because of the purity of
> your selfishness. It's always the same. The only way it could change
> is if you people change. Unless you do, you will always cling to the
> lies.
You've been running on hot air for years now, now you're recycling the same
hot stale hot air. You need to stop the bullshit and start dealing honestly
with me. Start by answering my question, i.e. admit that there is no
misnomer.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:06:20 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "Dutch" repeated the lie:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>>>>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>>>>> It's the truth,
>>>>
>>>> There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
>>>
>>>In order for "animal rights" to be a misnomer it must deny
>>>some rights to animals.
>>
>> LOL! That's a new lie for you.
>
>It is the meaning of the word misnomer, and what you are implying, a
>misnomer is something which does the opposite of what it claims to do.
>
>"AR" advocates campaign for animal rights,
Which rights for which animals? Be specific. You lose.
>if it is a misnomer as you insist
>then by definition it must deny rights to some animals.
All it has to do is not mean what it implies, and the elimination
of livestock is NOT the same as providing them with rights. LOL!!! You
are so obviously a misnomer hugger that it's hilarious.
. . .
>> They don't have to be "denied" in order for MisNomer to be
>> dishonest about "her" suggestion that "she" might hope to provide one
>> or two.
>
>In order for "AR" to be a misnomer it must violate some animal rights.
. . .
That's still a lie.
>>>ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>
>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>
>The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>all of them, every single one.
We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
again/still.
>Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>for livestock that is being violated by AR. There is no such right, and
>nobody with a brain thinks there is, on either side of the argument.
>
>>>there are
>>>countless examples of it.
>>>
>>>They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
>>
>> Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer of course.
>
>Not in the least,
That's another lie, unless you can explain how you think they
could provide which rights for which livestock that are never raised.
Since they can't, it's proven a misnomer. The bitch can't go away, no
matter how much you lie and deny her. Oh yes she COULD go away, if
they would refer to themselves as eliminationists, or abolitionists or
something more honest, and make more noise about their true objective
than they do about the AW issues they exploit. LOL. And we all know
that isn't likely to happen in our lifetime...LOL...
>and you haven't shown it.
>
>>>but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
>>>on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
>>>decently.
>>
>> You people exploit AW issues in order to obtain contributions to
>> fund the objective of MisNomer.
>
>What do you have against AW issues?
I'm in favor of them.
>>>That does not constitute any "misnomer".
>>
>> That's just a repetition of your favorite blatant lie.
>
>It's just a repetition of the same fact. There is no misnomer,
That's a lie.
You wanted to claim that it was a different lie so I challenged
you to try explaining what makes you think so, if you really do. You
just can't explain yourself about anything. That's YOUR fault, not
mine.
>>>>>>> you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>>>>> different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>>>>> "Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>>>>> "animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>>>>> of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>>>>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>>>>> So what,
>>>>
>>>> It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
>>>> misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
>>>
>>>There is no misnomer.
>>
>> That lie doesn't become any less blatant just because you keep
>> telling it again and again.
>
>If it is not a lie
It IS a lie.
>then why can't you tell me what rights of animals AR
>violates?
It has nothing to do with rights which is of course what makes it
a misnomer. DUH!
>>>AR advocates the cessation of animal
>>>farming.
>>
>> We know.
>
>Stop saying "we", you're alone.
There's you and there's me. That's "we".
>> We also know that had nothing to do with providing them
>> with rights.
>
>Providing which animals with rights?
MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
>How can can you accuse anyone of not
>providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>
>How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
to know it's a lie
. . .
>>>AR openly advocates the termination
>>>of animal farming,
>>
>> That may be the only thing you've written in this post that's
>> true.
>
>Everything I've written is true.
That's a lie.
. . .
>>>> 1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
>>>
>>>ARAs want to give every livestock animal a life completely
>>>free of suffering, ideally, even though they believe that to
>>>be nearly impossible.
>
>I answered your question, why did you whiff?
Because you pretended something might happen that certainly would
not, meaning you just told another form of lie.
Do you know the names of the different dishonesties you use, and
what your different type lies are called, etc? Not all of you of
course, but you in particular, and Goo? LOL...even though you'll
probably lie about that too I imagine you do know and are very
familiar with the study of lying, or whatever it is. Maybe I should
read up on it myself, to learn more about you people and how you
think...how you come up with your different lies and your techniques
for sliming away from try to provide explanations, etc...
>>>> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
>>>> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
>>>> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
>>>> to see such animals eliminated?
>>>
>>>It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
>>>type of animal husbandry.
>>
>> The purity of you peoples' selfishness prevents you from being
>> able to answer the question, or even to try answering it.
>
>I answered the question
That's a lie. I challenge you to actually try to answer it. You
lose again.
. . .
>You need to stop the bullshit and start dealing honestly
>with me. Start by answering my question, i.e. admit that there is no
>misnomer.
MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for domestic animals,
making her an obvious misnomer. To say otherwise is a lie. You're the
one who lies all the time, not me. I don't recall you writing anything
that was true in this post, for example.
Dutch
It is the definition of the word.
>
>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>> all of them, every single one.
>
> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
> again/still.
There are no livestock in my lawn.
>
>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>
> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
>
>> for livestock that is being violated by AR. There is no such right, and
>> nobody with a brain thinks there is, on either side of the argument.
>>
>>>> there are
>>>> countless examples of it.
>>>>
>>>> They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
>>> Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer of course.
>> Not in the least,
>
> That's another lie, unless you can explain how you think they
> could provide which rights for which livestock that are never raised.
> Since they can't, it's proven a misnomer. The bitch can't go away, no
> matter how much you lie and deny her. Oh yes she COULD go away, if
> they would refer to themselves as eliminationists, or abolitionists or
> something more honest, and make more noise about their true objective
> than they do about the AW issues they exploit. LOL. And we all know
> that isn't likely to happen in our lifetime...LOL...
>
>> and you haven't shown it.
>>
>>>> but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
>>>> on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
>>>> decently.
>>> You people exploit AW issues in order to obtain contributions to
>>> fund the objective of MisNomer.
>> What do you have against AW issues?
>
> I'm in favor of them.
Then you should applaud PeTA.
>
>>>> That does not constitute any "misnomer".
>>> That's just a repetition of your favorite blatant lie.
>> It's just a repetition of the same fact. There is no misnomer,
>
> That's a lie.
It's a fact.
If you can't form coherent thoughts I am going to consider
it a concession.
>
>>>>>>>> you're being ridiculous. There are several
>>>>>>>> different but related agendas within the scope of AR.
>>>>>>>> "Eliminating domestic animals" refers to the elimination of
>>>>>>>> "animal domestication" as a human activity, NOT the killing
>>>>>>>> of any particular, specific animal or animals.
>>>>>>> It would involve the killing of the vast majority of them.
>>>>>> So what,
>>>>> It's something else that proves the dishonesty of your favorite
>>>>> misnomer...I mean: MisNomer.
>>>> There is no misnomer.
>>> That lie doesn't become any less blatant just because you keep
>>> telling it again and again.
>> If it is not a lie
>
> It IS a lie.
>
>> then why can't you tell me what rights of animals AR
>> violates?
>
> It has nothing to do with rights which is of course what makes it
> a misnomer. DUH!
It has everything to do with rights.
>
>>>> AR advocates the cessation of animal
>>>> farming.
>>> We know.
>> Stop saying "we", you're alone.
>
> There's you and there's me. That's "we".
>
>>> We also know that had nothing to do with providing them
>>> with rights.
>> Providing which animals with rights?
>
> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
> is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
It has everything to do with rights for livestock.
>
>> How can can you accuse anyone of not
>> providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>>
>> How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>
> You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
> with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
> pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
> way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
> reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
> to know it's a lie
AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
keeping of livestock.
> . . .
>>>> AR openly advocates the termination
>>>> of animal farming,
>>> That may be the only thing you've written in this post that's
>>> true.
>> Everything I've written is true.
>
> That's a lie.
It is true.
> . . .
>>>>> 1. How good do you think MisNomers want to make life for livestock?
>>>> ARAs want to give every livestock animal a life completely
>>>> free of suffering, ideally, even though they believe that to
>>>> be nearly impossible.
>> I answered your question, why did you whiff?
>
> Because you pretended something might happen that certainly would
> not, meaning you just told another form of lie.
>
> Do you know the names of the different dishonesties you use, and
> what your different type lies are called, etc? Not all of you of
> course, but you in particular, and Goo? LOL...even though you'll
> probably lie about that too I imagine you do know and are very
> familiar with the study of lying, or whatever it is. Maybe I should
> read up on it myself, to learn more about you people and how you
> think...how you come up with your different lies and your techniques
> for sliming away from try to provide explanations, etc...
Concession accepted.
>
>>>>> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
>>>>> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
>>>>> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
>>>>> to see such animals eliminated?
>>>> It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
>>>> type of animal husbandry.
>>> The purity of you peoples' selfishness prevents you from being
>>> able to answer the question, or even to try answering it.
>> I answered the question
>
> That's a lie. I challenge you to actually try to answer it. You
> lose again.
Concession accepted.
> . . .
>> You need to stop the bullshit and start dealing honestly
>> with me. Start by answering my question, i.e. admit that there is no
>> misnomer.
>
> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for domestic animals,
> making her an obvious misnomer. To say otherwise is a lie. You're the
> one who lies all the time, not me. I don't recall you writing anything
> that was true in this post, for example.
AR means the end of keeping animals in captivity. There is
no misnomer inherent in that. To say there is is to imply
that future, theoretical captive animals have some right to
exist, which is nonsense.
dh
Now we're to the point of questioning whether that's a different
lie or a variation on the same one again. I feel like it's a different
one this time for some reason.
_________________________________________________________
A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to
be untrue. Such incorrect terms sometimes derived their names because
of the form, action, or origin of the subject�becoming named popularly
or widely referenced�long before their true natures were known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
���������������������������������������������������������
LOL! According to Wikipedia your favorite misnomer is not only a
dishonest strawwoman but also the perfect poster child for their
definition of misnomer. LOL!!!! I'm glad you lied me into finding such
a perfect example. It is exactly what I've been pointing out and
you've hated seeing me point out for years.
>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>> all of them, every single one.
>>
>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>> again/still.
>
>There are no livestock in my lawn.
So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
reptiles.
>>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>>
>> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>
>Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
It's certainly a lie in regards to anyone who can't conceive of
how there could be a right to life for potential future beings who are
not yet even conceived. Obviously you think you can conceive of the
existence of such supposed rights or you wouldn't be insisting what
you're insisting, yet I feel totally confident you can't explain to
anyone else how you think they could possibly exist. Since you can't
explain how you think they could possibly exist, you sure look like a
stupid lying ass for insisting that anything could imply that there is
some right to exist. LOL...it is idiotic to think that pointing out
the lie behind the misnomer implys anything as stupid as that.
>>> for livestock that is being violated by AR. There is no such right, and
>>> nobody with a brain thinks there is, on either side of the argument.
>>>
>>>>> there are
>>>>> countless examples of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
>>>> Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer of course.
>>> Not in the least,
>>
>> That's another lie, unless you can explain how you think they
>> could provide which rights for which livestock that are never raised.
>> Since they can't, it's proven a misnomer. The bitch can't go away, no
>> matter how much you lie and deny her. Oh yes she COULD go away, if
>> they would refer to themselves as eliminationists, or abolitionists or
>> something more honest, and make more noise about their true objective
>> than they do about the AW issues they exploit. LOL. And we all know
>> that isn't likely to happen in our lifetime...LOL...
>>
>>> and you haven't shown it.
>>>
>>>>> but since that is unlikely much of their effort is focused
>>>>> on ensuring that those which are raised are treated
>>>>> decently.
>>>> You people exploit AW issues in order to obtain contributions to
>>>> fund the objective of MisNomer.
>>> What do you have against AW issues?
>>
>> I'm in favor of them.
>
>Then you should applaud PeTA.
IF it was necessary for them to get involved in order to make some
things better then I'm in favor of that, but even more it's shameful
for it to ever come to that. But I do know LOL!!! from plenty of
experience that you people lie as or more often than you tell the
truth, and I'm more than well aware that use of the misnomer is an act
of extreme dishonesty in their attempt to create a false impression of
what they really are about. Since I'm aware of all that, I also
suspect that they claim credit for things they don't deserve. For
example I know investigations were being done into more humane and
efficient slaughter methods long before PeTA got involved, and don't
have any doubt that they would try to take credit for improvements
that they don't deserve. And even if they have done some good and have
not dishonestly grabbed credit they don't deserve, WE KNOW they are
still opposed to the idea of raising animals for food even when they
have decent lives of positive value and humane deaths. And we also
know that they work AGAINST that idea, meaning that obviously anyone
in favor of the idea should be opposed to PeTA. Of course there's
more, but that's more than you people can appreciate right there.
. . .
>> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
>> is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
>
>It has everything to do with rights for livestock.
Which rights do you claim it would provide for which livestock?
>>> How can can you accuse anyone of not
>>> providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>>>
>>> How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>>
>> You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
>> with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
>> pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
>> way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
>> reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
>> to know it's a lie
>
>AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>keeping of livestock.
You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
insects, small mammals or reptiles.
. . .
>> Do you know the names of the different dishonesties you use, and
>> what your different type lies are called, etc? Not all of you of
>> course, but you in particular, and Goo? LOL...even though you'll
>> probably lie about that too I imagine you do know and are very
>> familiar with the study of lying, or whatever it is. Maybe I should
>> read up on it myself, to learn more about you people and how you
>> think...how you come up with your different lies and your techniques
>> for sliming away from try to provide explanations, etc...
>
>Concession accepted.
LOL!!!
>>>>>> 2. If they make them good enough to be of positive value--which is the
>>>>>> least that anyone trying to get involved should want to achieve--why
>>>>>> would they still allow the purity of their selfishness to STILL want
>>>>>> to see such animals eliminated?
>>>>> It's not any specific animals they want eliminated, it is a
>>>>> type of animal husbandry.
>>>> The purity of you peoples' selfishness prevents you from being
>>>> able to answer the question, or even to try answering it.
>>> I answered the question
>>
>> That's a lie. I challenge you to actually try to answer it. You
>> lose again.
>
>Concession accepted.
I wonder what that particular type of lie is called, and I do
appreciate you presenting such a blatant example of the sort of
dishonesty I'm asking you about....
...well, so far I haven't found it yet. I did find some results when I
did a search for "lying animal rights" though:
Results 1 - 10 of about 885,000 for lying animal rights. (0.28
seconds)
Search Results
1.
OREBA RESCUE NETWORK GROUP - We Hate Lying Animal Rights
Dog Rescue, Human Rights, Animal Rights, Pet Rescue, Animal
Rescue,
www.freewebs.com/orebarescue/wehatelyinganimalrights.htm -
Cached - Similar
2.
Animal rights activists charged :The Scientist [21st April 2009]
"Vivisection" is a word that has no meaning outside of lying
animal "rights" propaganda. It doesn't appear in scientific research
using ...
www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55651/ - Similar
3.
OREBA RESCUE NETWORK GROUP MESSAGE BOARD: Help US Stop These
Lying ...
Feb 13, 2008 ... These are the lying Animal Rights People BSL,
HSUS, PETA, ISPEAKInc there is a lot more. Help us stop them killing
your love ones. ...
members7.boardhost.com/OREBARescue/.../1202927259.top - Cached -
Similar
4.
Animals That Love Being Slaughtered For Food
Thank you for taking an interest in KARA and animal rights in
Korea! .... Such ads are lying to you. Feel free to send any any
images you find. ...
animalrightskorea.org/lying.../animals-that-love-being-slaughtered-for-food.html
- Cached - Similar
5.
www.vegetablekillers.net - Stop lying about animal welfare ...
2 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Sep 29, 2004
Vegetable Killers - a veggie forum, Stop lying about animal
welfare, Fuckwit David Harrison Animal welfare is not some end in
itself, ...
www.vegetablekillers.net/.../12169-stop-lying-about-animal-welfare-fuckwit-david-harrison.html
- Cached - Similar
6.
Matt Prescott Keeps On Lying about Holocaust On Your Plate ...
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is still touring the
world with its Holocaust On Your Plate display. In September, the
display started making ...
www.animalrights.net/.../matt-prescott-keeps-on-lying-about-holocaust-on-your-plate/
- Cached - Similar
7.
Allison Lance Watson Charge with Lying to Grand Jury ...
On January 14, Allison Lance-Watson -- wife of Sea Shepherd
activist Paul Watson -- was arrested and charged with lying to a
federal grand jury ...
www.animalrights.net/.../allison-lance-watson-charge-with-lying-to-grand-jury/
- Cached - Similar
More results from www.animalrights.net �
8.
Lying About Cass Sunstein
I suppose some of his animal rights views count as �fringe� but
again� who cares? ... 8 Instapundit � Blog Archive � JULIAN SANCHEZ
says critics are Lying ...
www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/.../lying-about-cass-sunstein/ -
Cached - Similar
9.
Please tell TVOntario to stop lying t... - Animal Rights -
tribe.net
As well, if the realities of the animal industries are to
horrible to show to our children, maybe that tells you something about
these industries. ...
tribes.tribe.net/animalrights/.../5d8037e0-5cb8-4d48-b113-920aaefc2308
- Cached - Similar
10.
The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Animal rights groups
...
Feb 3, 2009 ... �All I could think about while I was lying there
freezing was that ... Although Animal Activists of Alachua, an
on�campus animal rights ...
www.alligator.org/articles/2009/02/03/.../090203_peta.txt -
Cached - Similar
Dutch
> or widely referenced�long before their true natures were known.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
> ���������������������������������������������������������
> LOL! According to Wikipedia your favorite misnomer is not only a
> dishonest strawwoman but also the perfect poster child for their
> definition of misnomer. LOL!!!! I'm glad you lied me into finding such
> a perfect example. It is exactly what I've been pointing out and
> you've hated seeing me point out for years.
Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer itself. You're creating the
misnomer.
>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>> all of them, every single one.
>>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>>> again/still.
>> There are no livestock in my lawn.
>
> So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
> reptiles.
Humans acquire moral obligations towards domestic animals due to our
active participation in the breeding and use of these animals, that is
primarily what "animal rights" refers to.
>>>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>>> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>> Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
>
> It's certainly a lie in regards to anyone who can't conceive of
> how there could be a right to life for potential future beings who are
> not yet even conceived. Obviously you think you can conceive of the
> existence of such supposed rights or you wouldn't be insisting what
> you're insisting, yet I feel totally confident you can't explain to
> anyone else how you think they could possibly exist. Since you can't
> explain how you think they could possibly exist, you sure look like a
> stupid lying ass for insisting that anything could imply that there is
> some right to exist. LOL...it is idiotic to think that pointing out
> the lie behind the misnomer implys anything as stupid as that.
If AR is a misnomer as you say then it must be violating or denying some
animal rights. The animals AR refers to are future livestock. Where is
the violation?
Paragraph too long.
> . . .
>>> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
>>> is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
>> It has everything to do with rights for livestock.
>
> Which rights do you claim it would provide for which livestock?
>
>>>> How can can you accuse anyone of not
>>>> providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>>>>
>>>> How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>>> You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
>>> with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
>>> pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
>>> way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
>>> reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
>>> to know it's a lie
>> AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>> keeping of livestock.
>
> You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
> insects, small mammals or reptiles.
Different issue.
> . . .
>>> Do you know the names of the different dishonesties you use, and
>>> what your different type lies are called, etc? Not all of you of
>>> course, but you in particular, and Goo? LOL...even though you'll
>>> probably lie about that too I imagine you do know and are very
>>> familiar with the study of lying, or whatever it is. Maybe I should
>>> read up on it myself, to learn more about you people and how you
>>> think...how you come up with your different lies and your techniques
>>> for sliming away from try to provide explanations, etc...
>> Concession accepted.
>
> LOL!!!
Accepted
> More results from www.animalrights.net �
> 8.
> Lying About Cass Sunstein
> I suppose some of his animal rights views count as �fringe� but
> again� who cares? ... 8 Instapundit � Blog Archive � JULIAN SANCHEZ
> says critics are Lying ...
> www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/.../lying-about-cass-sunstein/ -
> Cached - Similar
> 9.
> Please tell TVOntario to stop lying t... - Animal Rights -
> tribe.net
> As well, if the realities of the animal industries are to
> horrible to show to our children, maybe that tells you something about
> these industries. ...
>
> tribes.tribe.net/animalrights/.../5d8037e0-5cb8-4d48-b113-920aaefc2308
> - Cached - Similar
> 10.
> The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Animal rights groups
> ...
> Feb 3, 2009 ... �All I could think about while I was lying there
> freezing was that ... Although Animal Activists of Alachua, an
> on�campus animal rights ...
> www.alligator.org/articles/2009/02/03/.../090203_peta.txt -
> Cached - Similar
Too long, get your head straight.
O.pearl
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:9Inbm.46440$FP2....@newsfe05.iad...
>>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
'Animal rights
Adherents of this philosophy believe that animals have the right to such
things as respectful treatment, bodily integrity, and freedom of movement,
and that violating the rights of animals is not morally justified, no matter
how great the potential benefits to humans may be thought to be.
Proponents of animal rights also believe it is wrong to commodify animals,
to treat them as a means to an end, for the same kinds of reasons it is
wrong for us to treat other humans in this manner. In this way, animal rights
is similar to human rights. Practitioners of the philosophy of animal rights
resolve not to use products derived from the use or killing animals for such
things as food, clothing, entertainment, or scientific research. They also
refuse to support or collaborate with those who use and kill animals for
these purposes. See also veganism, non-cooperation and non-participation.
Common Misuse: The term animal rights is often misused in the mainstream
media as a synonym for any form of animal advocacy or animal protection
work, when in fact the term has a very specific meaning. This misuse is
comparably inaccurate to describing social work as the practice of human
rights. Additionally, some animal advocates confuse the philosophy of animal
rights with utilitarianism.
http://www.humanemyth.org/glossary/1023.htm
>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>>> all of them, every single one.
Tell us about 'necessary suffering', dodge.
Dutch
'Animal rights' has a range of meanings in the language. Predictably, AR
extremists believe they have the authority to dictate what words can
mean, just as they believe they own the moral high ground in their view
of animals. If there is a more smug, myopic, arrogant group of humans in
the world I can't think of them.
>>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary
>>>>>> suffering, and all of them, every single one.
>
> Tell us about 'necessary suffering', dodge.
Necessary suffering is that which is part of life, unnecessary suffering
is that which is caused by human neglect or abuse.
O.pearl
Predictable nonsensical blather. Go look in the mirror.
>>>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary
>>>>>>> suffering, and all of them, every single one.
>>
>> Tell us about 'necessary suffering', dodge.
>
> Necessary suffering is that which is part of life, unnecessary suffering
> is that which is caused by human neglect or abuse.
Ditto.
Dutch
Being part of a food chain is by definition not unnecessary suffering,
just as is competing for resources in the wild.
Is the suffering of the thousands of small animals consumed by whales
every day "unnecessary"? Animals eat animals.
You only need to look around to see the system nature created for the
survival of earth's creatures. Humans are not above nature.
O.pearl
Humans are frugivores. You exploit and kill animals for self-gratification.
dh
>> of the form, action, or origin of the subject�becoming named popularly
>> or widely referenced�long before their true natures were known.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
>> ���������������������������������������������������������
>> LOL! According to Wikipedia your favorite misnomer is not only a
>> dishonest strawwoman but also the perfect poster child for their
>> definition of misnomer. LOL!!!! I'm glad you lied me into finding such
>> a perfect example. It is exactly what I've been pointing out and
>> you've hated seeing me point out for years.
>
>Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer
Which rights do you want people to believe it would provide for
which livestock?
>itself. You're creating the
>misnomer.
>
>>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>>> all of them, every single one.
>>>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>>>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>>>> again/still.
>>> There are no livestock in my lawn.
>>
>> So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
>> reptiles.
>
>Humans acquire moral obligations towards domestic animals due to our
>active participation in the breeding and use of these animals, that is
>primarily what "animal rights" refers to.
LOL. In other words, "yes".
>>>>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>>>> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>>> Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
>>
>> It's certainly a lie in regards to anyone who can't conceive of
>> how there could be a right to life for potential future beings who are
>> not yet even conceived. Obviously you think you can conceive of the
>> existence of such supposed rights or you wouldn't be insisting what
>> you're insisting, yet I feel totally confident you can't explain to
>> anyone else how you think they could possibly exist. Since you can't
>> explain how you think they could possibly exist, you sure look like a
>> stupid lying ass for insisting that anything could imply that there is
>> some right to exist. LOL...it is idiotic to think that pointing out
>> the lie behind the misnomer implys anything as stupid as that.
>
>If AR is a misnomer as you say then it must be violating or denying some
>animal rights.
Wow, there's that lie again.
We both know I'm right, but that's about as "close" to honesty as
you can allow yourself to get I suppose.
>> . . .
>>>> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
>>>> is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
>>> It has everything to do with rights for livestock.
>>
>> Which rights do you claim it would provide for which livestock?
>>
>>>>> How can can you accuse anyone of not
>>>>> providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>>>> You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
>>>> with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
>>>> pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
>>>> way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
>>>> reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
>>>> to know it's a lie
>>> AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>>> keeping of livestock.
>>
>> You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
>> insects, small mammals or reptiles.
>
>Different issue.
There would be none for them, and none for domestic animals of
course.
. . .
>> More results from www.animalrights.net �
>> 8.
>> Lying About Cass Sunstein
>> I suppose some of his animal rights views count as �fringe� but
>> again� who cares? ... 8 Instapundit � Blog Archive � JULIAN SANCHEZ
>> says critics are Lying ...
>> www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/.../lying-about-cass-sunstein/ -
>> Cached - Similar
>> 9.
>> Please tell TVOntario to stop lying t... - Animal Rights -
>> tribe.net
>> As well, if the realities of the animal industries are to
>> horrible to show to our children, maybe that tells you something about
>> these industries. ...
>>
>> tribes.tribe.net/animalrights/.../5d8037e0-5cb8-4d48-b113-920aaefc2308
>> - Cached - Similar
>> 10.
>> The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Animal rights groups
>> ...
>> Feb 3, 2009 ... �All I could think about while I was lying there
>> freezing was that ... Although Animal Activists of Alachua, an
>> on�campus animal rights ...
>> www.alligator.org/articles/2009/02/03/.../090203_peta.txt -
>> Cached - Similar
>
>Too long,
There are more examples of MisNomers lying than you like to see,
but I enjoy it.
>get your head straight.
I'm looking straigh at a bunch of examples of your brothers and
sisters lying, like you do.
Dutch
Humans have been omnivorous since the origins of our species.
Fruit orchards are deadly places for birds and small animals. Pregnant
women are advised to not live close to them.
> You exploit and kill animals for
> self-gratification.
You exploit this extreme anti-social way of thinking because it
satisfies some deep-seated perverted need to loathe humanity.
O.pearl
'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones N.G.4
Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42)
Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has been disputed on
two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations on modern foragers show
that although hunting may contribute a large fraction of the overall diet,
it is an unreliable day-to-day food source, pursued more for status
than subsistence; (2) archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield
scavenging, not hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields results
consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans acquired large-bodied
ungulates primarily by aggressive scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was
consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the
hunting hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable
rates and in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game
an even less reliable food source than it is among modern foragers.
Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition
are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken not for
purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.
Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates,
its consumption cannot account for the significant changes in life history
now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. The
coincidence between the earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase
in the archaeological visibility of meat eating that many find so provocative
instead reflects: (1) changes in the structure of the environment that
concentrated scavenging opportunities in space, making evidence of their
pursuit more obvious to archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size
(itself a consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604
& 2my later humans are still frugivores, regardless of belief or behaviour.
"Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human
beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them,
they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol
and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are
natural herbivores."--William C.Roberts, M.D., editor, American
Journal of Cardiology, Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990
> Fruit orchards are deadly places for birds and small animals. Pregnant
> women are advised to not live close to them.
What the .. ? You're referring to the deadly agrochem's you use?
> > You exploit and kill animals for self-gratification.
>
> You exploit this extreme anti-social way of thinking because it
> satisfies some deep-seated perverted need to loathe humanity.
Nothing anti-social about it. Meat consumption kills humans too.
As ever we see you parading your own damned pathology here...
Dutch
Page not found..
> & 2my later humans are still frugivores, regardless of belief or behaviour.
It is immaterial what claims people make about human physiology, we have
subsisted on a wide variety of foods including meat since prehistoric
times. We are obviously well adapted to it.
> "Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human beings
> are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end
> up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and
> saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural
> herbivores."--William C.Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of
> Cardiology, Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990
One voice in the wilderness. That opinion is not shared by the broader
medical and nutritional community.
Saying "meat was not intended for.." is not scientific opinion, nothing
is "intended for" anything, animals eat opportunistically.
>> Fruit orchards are deadly places for birds and small animals. Pregnant
>> women are advised to not live close to them.
>
> What the .. ? You're referring to the deadly agrochem's you use?
I am referring to the ridiculous claims made by vegans and ARAs like you
that they are not involved in causing animal suffering.
>> > You exploit and kill animals for self-gratification.
>>
>> You exploit this extreme anti-social way of thinking because it
>> satisfies some deep-seated perverted need to loathe humanity.
>
> Nothing anti-social about it.
Calling 99% of people monsters is anti-social. You project your
self-loathing on the rest of us.
> Meat consumption kills humans too.
All agriculture kills.
> As ever we see you parading your own damned pathology here...
That's rich. You parade your self-righteous posturing as if it were
something to be proud of.
You disgust me.
Dutch
>>> or widely referenced�long before their true natures were known.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
>>> ���������������������������������������������������������
>>> dishonest strawwoman but also the perfect poster child for their
>>> definition of misnomer. LOL!!!! I'm glad you lied me into finding such
>>> a perfect example. It is exactly what I've been pointing out and
>>> you've hated seeing me point out for years.
>> Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer
>
> Which rights do you want people to believe it would provide for
> which livestock?
The very existence of "livestock" implies a rights violation in AR
doctrine.
Calling AR a misnomer is like saying that emancipation is misnomer
because it would end slave holding.
You're talking in circles.
>> itself. You're creating the
>> misnomer.
>>
>>>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>>>> all of them, every single one.
>>>>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>>>>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>>>>> again/still.
>>>> There are no livestock in my lawn.
>>> So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
>>> reptiles.
>> Humans acquire moral obligations towards domestic animals due to our
>> active participation in the breeding and use of these animals, that is
>> primarily what "animal rights" refers to.
>
> LOL. In other words, "yes".
No, it's just a different issue.
>
>>>>>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>>>>> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>>>> Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
>>> It's certainly a lie in regards to anyone who can't conceive of
>>> how there could be a right to life for potential future beings who are
>>> not yet even conceived. Obviously you think you can conceive of the
>>> existence of such supposed rights or you wouldn't be insisting what
>>> you're insisting, yet I feel totally confident you can't explain to
>>> anyone else how you think they could possibly exist. Since you can't
>>> explain how you think they could possibly exist, you sure look like a
>>> stupid lying ass for insisting that anything could imply that there is
>>> some right to exist. LOL...it is idiotic to think that pointing out
>>> the lie behind the misnomer implys anything as stupid as that.
>> If AR is a misnomer as you say then it must be violating or denying some
>> animal rights.
>
> Wow, there's that lie again.
If Animal Rights doesn't deny or violate the rights of any animal then
it can't be a misnomer.
Your short sentences are already too much of a mess.
>
>>> . . .
>>>>> MisNomer has nothing to do with rights for livestock, which again
>>>>> is why she's a misnomer. Duh.
>>>> It has everything to do with rights for livestock.
>>> Which rights do you claim it would provide for which livestock?
>>>
>>>>>> How can can you accuse anyone of not
>>>>>> providing rights for animals that don't exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is it all your arguments boil down to garbled circular drivel?
>>>>> You don't want to accept the fact that MisNomer has nothing to do
>>>>> with rights for domestic animals, making her a misnomer. You want to
>>>>> pretend that she still somehow in some magical fairy princes sort of
>>>>> way will provide rights for domestic animals, or at least you want to
>>>>> reinforce that impression even if you yourself aren't truly too stupid
>>>>> to know it's a lie
>>>> AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>>>> keeping of livestock.
>>> You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
>>> insects, small mammals or reptiles.
>> Different issue.
>
> There would be none for them, and none for domestic animals of
> course.
I'm not interested in getting distracted into discussing the
inconsistencies of AR, there are plenty, my point is that YOU have not
identified one with your "misnomer" nonsense.
>>> More results from www.animalrights.net �
>>> 8.
>>> Lying About Cass Sunstein
>>> I suppose some of his animal rights views count as �fringe� but
>>> again� who cares? ... 8 Instapundit � Blog Archive � JULIAN SANCHEZ
>>> says critics are Lying ...
>>> www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/.../lying-about-cass-sunstein/ -
>>> Cached - Similar
>>> 9.
>>> Please tell TVOntario to stop lying t... - Animal Rights -
>>> tribe.net
>>> As well, if the realities of the animal industries are to
>>> horrible to show to our children, maybe that tells you something about
>>> these industries. ...
>>>
>>> tribes.tribe.net/animalrights/.../5d8037e0-5cb8-4d48-b113-920aaefc2308
>>> - Cached - Similar
>>> 10.
>>> The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Animal rights groups
>>> ...
>>> Feb 3, 2009 ... �All I could think about while I was lying there
>>> freezing was that ... Although Animal Activists of Alachua, an
>>> on�campus animal rights ...
>>> www.alligator.org/articles/2009/02/03/.../090203_peta.txt -
>>> Cached - Similar
>> Too long,
>
> There are more examples of MisNomers lying than you like to see,
> but I enjoy it.
Those aren't misnomers.
>> get your head straight.
>
> I'm looking straigh at a bunch of examples of your brothers and
> sisters lying, like you do.
Get your head straight.
O.pearl
2 clicks..
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
>> & 2my later humans are still frugivores, regardless of belief or behaviour.
>
> It is immaterial what claims people make about human physiology, we have
> subsisted on a wide variety of foods including meat since prehistoric
> times. We are obviously well adapted to it.
"Claims"?
'.. in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the
gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the
lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of
human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being
grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999).
.. '
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/estho19/21-31.pdf
>> "Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human beings
>> are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end
>> up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and
>> saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural
>> herbivores."--William C.Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of
>> Cardiology, Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990
>
> One voice in the wilderness. That opinion is not shared by the broader
> medical and nutritional community.
Says who? You?
'Consumption of foods rich in saturated fatty acids and cholesterol has
long been recognized as an important precursor for the development of
coronary heart disease; saturated fatty acids and cholesterol each
independently elevate cholesterol and LDL concentrations in the blood (1).
..'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/6/951
> Saying "meat was not intended for.." is not scientific opinion, nothing
> is "intended for" anything, animals eat opportunistically.
Nonsense. Each species is biologically adapted to a specific diet.
>>> Fruit orchards are deadly places for birds and small animals. Pregnant
>>> women are advised to not live close to them.
>>
>> What the .. ? You're referring to the deadly agrochem's you use?
>
> I am referring to the ridiculous claims made by vegans and ARAs like you
> that they are not involved in causing animal suffering.
You have no idea what individuals eat. Most would choose organic.
>>> > You exploit and kill animals for self-gratification.
>>>
>>> You exploit this extreme anti-social way of thinking because it
>>> satisfies some deep-seated perverted need to loathe humanity.
>>
>> Nothing anti-social about it.
>
> Calling 99% of people monsters is anti-social. You project your
> self-loathing on the rest of us.
People in the west are misled by heartless monsters with an agenda.
>> Meat consumption kills humans too.
>
> All agriculture kills.
You're full of BS.
>> As ever we see you parading your own damned pathology here...
>
> That's rich. You parade your self-righteous posturing as if it were
> something to be proud of.
>
> You disgust me.
That's you looking at your own reflection, ditch. You disgust us all.
dh
>>>> of the form, action, or origin of the subject�becoming named popularly
>>>> or widely referenced�long before their true natures were known.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
>>>> ���������������������������������������������������������
>>>> LOL! According to Wikipedia your favorite misnomer is not only a
>>>> dishonest strawwoman but also the perfect poster child for their
>>>> definition of misnomer. LOL!!!! I'm glad you lied me into finding such
>>>> a perfect example. It is exactly what I've been pointing out and
>>>> you've hated seeing me point out for years.
>>> Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer
>>
>> Which rights do you want people to believe it would provide for
>> which livestock?
>
>The very existence of "livestock" implies a rights violation in AR
>doctrine.
That's why it's a misnomer.
>Calling AR a misnomer is like saying that emancipation is misnomer
>because it would end slave holding.
You don't even believe that.
>You're talking in circles.
>
>
>>> itself. You're creating the
>>> misnomer.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>>>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>>>>> all of them, every single one.
>>>>>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>>>>>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>>>>>> again/still.
>>>>> There are no livestock in my lawn.
>>>> So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
>>>> reptiles.
>>> Humans acquire moral obligations towards domestic animals due to our
>>> active participation in the breeding and use of these animals, that is
>>> primarily what "animal rights" refers to.
>>
>> LOL. In other words, "yes".
>
>No, it's just a different issue.
You people sure like to be selective about what you would allow
taken into consideration.
>>>>>>> Your phony "misnomer" strawman implies that there is some "right to exist"
>>>>>> LOL!!! That's certainly a lie.
>>>>> Empty denial of an obvious conclusion.
>>>> It's certainly a lie in regards to anyone who can't conceive of
>>>> how there could be a right to life for potential future beings who are
>>>> not yet even conceived. Obviously you think you can conceive of the
>>>> existence of such supposed rights or you wouldn't be insisting what
>>>> you're insisting, yet I feel totally confident you can't explain to
>>>> anyone else how you think they could possibly exist. Since you can't
>>>> explain how you think they could possibly exist, you sure look like a
>>>> stupid lying ass for insisting that anything could imply that there is
>>>> some right to exist. LOL...it is idiotic to think that pointing out
>>>> the lie behind the misnomer implys anything as stupid as that.
>>> If AR is a misnomer as you say then it must be violating or denying some
>>> animal rights.
>>
>> Wow, there's that lie again.
>
>If Animal Rights doesn't deny or violate the rights of any animal then
>it can't be a misnomer.
It's a misnomer because the elimination of groups of animals is
not the same as providing those groups of animals with rights.
. . .
>>>>> AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>>>>> keeping of livestock.
>>>> You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
>>>> insects, small mammals or reptiles.
>>> Different issue.
>>
>> There would be none for them, and none for domestic animals of
>> course.
>
>I'm not interested in getting distracted into discussing the
>inconsistencies of AR, there are plenty, my point is that YOU have not
>identified one with your "misnomer" nonsense.
It's a gross mi$nomer, and we know why:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
>>>> More results from www.animalrights.net �
>>>> 8.
>>>> Lying About Cass Sunstein
>>>> I suppose some of his animal rights views count as �fringe� but
>>>> again� who cares? ... 8 Instapundit � Blog Archive � JULIAN SANCHEZ
>>>> says critics are Lying ...
>>>> www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/.../lying-about-cass-sunstein/ -
>>>> Cached - Similar
>>>> 9.
>>>> Please tell TVOntario to stop lying t... - Animal Rights -
>>>> tribe.net
>>>> As well, if the realities of the animal industries are to
>>>> horrible to show to our children, maybe that tells you something about
>>>> these industries. ...
>>>>
>>>> tribes.tribe.net/animalrights/.../5d8037e0-5cb8-4d48-b113-920aaefc2308
>>>> - Cached - Similar
>>>> 10.
>>>> The Independent Florida Alligator: News - Animal rights groups
>>>> ...
>>>> Feb 3, 2009 ... �All I could think about while I was lying there
>>>> freezing was that ... Although Animal Activists of Alachua, an
>>>> on�campus animal rights ...
>>>> www.alligator.org/articles/2009/02/03/.../090203_peta.txt -
>>>> Cached - Similar
>>> Too long,
>>
>> There are more examples of MisNomers lying than you like to see,
>> but I enjoy it.
>
>Those aren't misnomers.
They are misnomer advocates.
>>> get your head straight.
>>
>> I'm looking straigh at a bunch of examples of your brothers and
>> sisters lying, like you do.
>
>Get your head straight.
When dealing with misnomer advocates I'm usually looking straight
a lies.
Dutch
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer
>>> Which rights do you want people to believe it would provide for
>>> which livestock?
>> The very existence of "livestock" implies a rights violation in AR
>> doctrine.
>
> That's why it's a misnomer.
That doesn't constitute a misnomer.
>> Calling AR a misnomer is like saying that emancipation is misnomer
>> because it would end slave holding.
>
> You don't even believe that.
I believe it, or else I would not have said it.
Emancipation = "Abolish slave-holding" Those who are slaves stop being
slaves
AR = "Abolish livestock-holding" Those which are livestock stop being
livestock.
They are exactly parallel conceptually. In reality one may support one
and not the other, but they are the same logical structure.
In the case of human slaves, once slave-holding ends those people become
free to have families and thus we have descendants of slaves in society
with rights as humans.
In the case of livestock, the cessation of livestock-holding would
result in the virtual end of many breeds, like Hereford cattle, unless
someone wanted to raise them.
In order for AR to be a misnomer someone would have to care if the
descendants of livestock species continued to exist after abolition of
livestock-holding. There is no such sentiment anywhere.
>
>> You're talking in circles.
>>
>>
>>>> itself. You're creating the
>>>> misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>>>>>>>>> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
>>>>>>>> The right to be treated with dignity and spared unecessary suffering, and
>>>>>>>> all of them, every single one.
>>>>>>> We wouldn't be able to plow fields, cut trees or lawns, build
>>>>>>> roads or buildings, etc, meaning that apparently you're lying
>>>>>>> again/still.
>>>>>> There are no livestock in my lawn.
>>>>> So you're saying no rights for insects, small mammals and
>>>>> reptiles.
>>>> Humans acquire moral obligations towards domestic animals due to our
>>>> active participation in the breeding and use of these animals, that is
>>>> primarily what "animal rights" refers to.
>>> LOL. In other words, "yes".
>> No, it's just a different issue.
>
> You people sure like to be selective about what you would allow
> taken into consideration.
Rational consideration includes being selective about what is taken into
consideration.
[..]
>>> Wow, there's that lie again.
>> If Animal Rights doesn't deny or violate the rights of any animal then
>> it can't be a misnomer.
>
> It's a misnomer because the elimination of groups of animals is
> not the same as providing those groups of animals with rights.
Yes it is. When you provide slaves with rights, the group "slaves"
ceases to exist. Therefore you could say that you didn't provide
"slaves" with rights. In fact you eliminated the category.
> . . .
>>>>>> AR is about rights for animals, not perpetuation of the
>>>>>> keeping of livestock.
>>>>> You've already made it apparent that there would be no rights for
>>>>> insects, small mammals or reptiles.
>>>> Different issue.
>>> There would be none for them, and none for domestic animals of
>>> course.
>> I'm not interested in getting distracted into discussing the
>> inconsistencies of AR, there are plenty, my point is that YOU have not
>> identified one with your "misnomer" nonsense.
>
> It's a gross mi$nomer, and we know why:
>
> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
> of animal use." - Dutch
That doesn't constitute a misnomer. It is simply contributors who
support part of an organization's agenda and not another. The same thing
happens with political parties.
[..]
>
> When dealing with misnomer advocates I'm usually looking straight
> a lies.
There's no misnomer.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:57:39 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Calling AR a misnomer is in fact a misnomer
>>>> Which rights do you want people to believe it would provide for
>>>> which livestock?
>>> The very existence of "livestock" implies a rights violation in AR
>>> doctrine.
>>
>> That's why it's a misnomer.
>
>That doesn't constitute a misnomer.
>
>>> Calling AR a misnomer is like saying that emancipation is misnomer
>>> because it would end slave holding.
>>
>> You don't even believe that.
>
>I believe it, or else I would not have said it.
>
>Emancipation = "Abolish slave-holding" Those who are slaves stop being
>slaves
>
>AR
The dishonest term claims it would provide "animal rights"
>Those which are livestock stop being livestock.
What "rights" do you want people to think they would be provided
with?
Dutch
"They" you utter buffoon, would never exist. The "animal rights" AR
envisions describes a world where the only animals are the wild and free
type. That's what "AR" means.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:06:20 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "Dutch" repeated the lie:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no misnomer,
>>>>> That's an extremely blatant lie.
>>>> It's the truth,
>>> There's only one reason you would want people to believe that lie.
>> In order for "animal rights" to be a misnomer it must deny
>> some rights to animals.
>
> LOL! That's a new lie for you.
Not a lie at all.
Yes, they would.
>> by the cessation of
>> livestock farming?
>>
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>> A. They DO want to ELIMINATE domestic animals.
>>>>>> Yes, in the extreme case, many only want to eliminate
>>>>>> livestock, research animals, circus and zoo animals, not pets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B. They do NOT want to provide domestic animals with rights.
>>>>>> Yes they do.
>>>>> LOL!
>>>> Brilliant
>>> It was another occasion when I was amused by the blatancy of one
>>> of your lies. For years I laughed more at the Goober than at anything
>>> else in my life, and many times I enjoyed the idiocy his most blatant
>>> lie which was to lie that he didn't lie. It did get old eventually,
>>> but it was so stupid and blatanly dishonest that I was quite amused by
>>> it for several years.
>> ARAs advocate for rights for livestock animals,
>
> Which ones, and for which livestock animals?
Ones that exist.
>> there are
>> countless examples of it.
>>
>> They would prefer that we stop raising livestock entirely,
>
> Proving the dishonesty of MisNomer
Proving the dishonesty of your silly, illiterate use of the word "misnomer".
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>>> <TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox. That's *ANTI* hunting
>>>>> videos, btw - shown to demonstrate the alleged `cruelty' but all I saw
>>>>> was very quick painless deaths.
>>> Those are some of the most dishonest people on the planet, afaik.
>>> For one thing just the misnomer they dishonestly use to represent
>>> themselves is tremendous. They use the term "animal rights" to
>>> represent their objective to ELIMINATE domestic animals. They promote
>>> no rights or anything at all for them. There would be no horses or
>>> dogs...or cows or cats...
>>> Ah. But it can't be a total lie, can it? Okay, so it is in regards
>>> to domestic animals, but what about wildlife? Well, advocates of the
>>> misnomer contribute to the deaths of wildlife in almost all of the
>>> same ways everyone else does, by their use of paper and wood products,
>>> electricity, their food, their use of roads and buildings, etc...
>>> Which rights are they to provide for which animals in order to prevent
>>> them being killed? Hmmm...no answer in sight.
>>> Aha! But what about the no hunting thing? Okay, we see they are
>>> dishonest about domestic animals and collateral deaths of wildlife,
>>> but how about deliberately controlling wildlife population sizes?
>>> Don't they want to ban hunting? Yes they do, and they want to leave
>>> population "management" to things which produce more suffering like
>>> starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. Things which produce more
>>> suffering overall, and especially a LOT more to pregnant females and
>>> young and baby animals than human hunting does of course. Only humans
>>> even try to maintain a particular population size appropriate for the
>>> environment, and only humans even consider trying to be humane.
>>> Eliminating THAT is about all we can see the gross misnomer would do
>>> "for" any animals. Pretty much nothing...except increased suffering
>>> that is.
>>>
>>>> You've seen nothing other than the inside of your own rectum
>>>>
>>>>> What the anti-hunting people seemed to dislike was the fact that the
>>>>> deaths were so quick and painless - 'cos it's very messy.
>>>> No shit Sherlock
>>> What it comes down to is that the misnomer huggers don't care
>>> about the animals at all. What they care about is that they are
>>> disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat, wear fur and skins, and
>>> hunt animals. They want to put an end to those things which disturb
>>> them, REGARDLESS of any influence ("No shit Serlock") it would have on
>>> any animals.
>> I haven't read quite so much rubbish since the last time I looked on
>> usenet.
>>
>> I'll reiterate the important issue as you appear to have missed it:
>> using a dog pack to restrain and kill wild animals is unnecessary.
>> Animals pursued and captured by dogs appear to suffer distress. It is
>> reasonable to make moral judgements about animal suffering when we
>> humans cause that suffering. Consequently, hunting animals with dogs
>> is cruel.
>
> In some cases it is.
It is, period.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:11:54 +0100, nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:06:30 +0100, Shade <lost...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:25:58 +0100, "T h � M u n t d r � g g � r"
>>>>> <TheMunt...@GoogleMail.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen it in videos shown by anti-hunting types. They show quick
>>>>>>> painless deaths when the hounds catch the fox.
>> a live kill and wasn't going to watch any videos because he 'knew' that
>> hounds killed foxes efficiently. Not a credible witness.
>>> in regards to suffering, depending on what the dogs actually do. But
>>> people who are opposed to hunting will often support the idea of
>>> non-human predators. There's no doubt wolves cause more suffering than
>>> humans with dogs, though some people don't care and sometimes even
>>> want to deny the fact.
>> There's a strong correlation, for no-brainer and evolutionary reasons,
>> between solitary predators and efficient predation, and pack animals and
>> inefficient predation.
>>
>> Hunting foxes with a single hound is still legal because a single hound
>> is not able to catch and overpower a healthy fox on its own, but it can
>> flush out a fox to be shot by a marksman.
>>
>> Wolves operate in smaller packs than hounds and are somewhat more
>> efficient predators. A claim that they cause more suffering per kill is
>> very unlikely.
>
> They live in the area with their prey and cause them to live in
> fear a much greater percentage of the time of the time than dogs do.
Unimportant.
> So of course why do you want people to believe it's different than it
> is, and how do you want them to think it's different?
Humans don't artificially organize the wolves and lead them out to kill
animals.
§nühw¤£f
Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
"hunting".
In most cases nowadays it has little to do with survival.
"Sport" hunting is done to give stupid rednecks an outlet for thier
agressions and an excuse to be outside in the natural world they
secretly fear.
--
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/22-10
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
§nühw¤£f
> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>> "hunting".
>
> Hunting per se isn't
As accepted as it used to be.
Yep.
^_^
ex-PFC Wintergreen
�n�hw��f wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>> "hunting".
>>
>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>
> [crap]
Try to say something relevant.
§nühw¤£f
> punk's dead
Agreed. It has been replaced by techno.
>
> �n�hw��f wrote:
>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>>> "hunting".
>>>
>>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>>
>> [crap]
>
> Try to say
Yes?
Yes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fvZdA3iydw
ex-PFC Wintergreen
�n�hw��f wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> stupid shit-eating punk's vandalism repaired
>
> Agreed
Good.
>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> �n�hw��f wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention the artifical "reasons" humans use to justify their
>>>>> "hunting".
>>>>
>>>> Hunting per se isn't wrong and doesn't need justification.
>>>
>>> [crap]
>>
>> Try to say something relevant.
>
> Yes?
> Yes?
You still fail. You're an idiot.
§nühw¤£f
> stupid shit-eating punk
---
> an idiot.
My condolences!
maybe you need a check-up from the neck-up!
Nice sig btw, its accurate and to the point.
^_^
David N. Harrison
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> stupid shit-eating punk
>> still fail
> ---
>> an idiot.
>
Right.
§nühw¤£f
> I am an asshole.
>
> Right?
I concur whole-heartedly!
David N. Harrison
>
> I am an asshole.
>
> Right?
>
> I concur whole-heartedly!
Good - it's always good to agree with yourself.
§nühw¤£f
> shit-4-braincell, admitted.
Maybe you can get out with good behaviour.
dh
How do you think your pre-existence prevents you from
benefitting from your own existence now, Goo?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
Quit asking that question idiot, it is meaningless.
§nühw¤£f
>
>
> Quit
Never.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
Only to Goo who can't explain why he disagrees with himselves.
dh
There is an excellent example of "Dutch" doing that same
thing in the thread:
What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
After all his years of maniacally insisting that the lives of NO
beings should ever be given any moral consideration, he's now in
dispute with dorayme and Patricia Aldoraz because he doesn't feel
that dorayme is giving as much consideration to the lives of some
people as to others, or some such thing. It's probably more
examples of his dishonesties but the point is that with them he's
trying to pretend he does consider the lives of at least some
beings, while he has been denying to me that people should ever
consider the lives of any beings for about a decade now. I doubt
the poor fool will ever be able to try explaining how he thinks
he disagrees with himself about this one. So what are his options
from this point? Whatever they are, they almost certainly must
involve more dishonesty and maybe more disagreeing with himself.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:e0cfaed3-d55d-4a23...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
-------->
Check your meds..
Dutch
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 09:19:18 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 1, 1:31 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in
>>> messagenews:92gsj595ihoda2p66...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26:13 -0800, "David N. Harrison"
>>> > <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Dave Norris, shit-4-braincell, admitted:
>>>
>>> >>> I am an asshole.
>>>
>>> >>> Right?
>>>
>>> >>> I concur whole-heartedly!
>>>
>>> >>Good - it's always good to agree with yourself.
>>>
>>> > How do you think your pre-existence prevents you from
>>> > benefitting from your own existence now, Goo?
>>>
>>> Quit asking that question idiot, it is meaningless.-
>>
>>
>>Only to Goo who can't explain why he disagrees with himselves.
>
> There is an excellent example of "Dutch" doing that same
> thing in the thread:
>
> What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
>
> After all his years of maniacally insisting that the lives of NO
> beings should ever be given any moral consideration
The life of any animal (or human) does not provide you with an argument to
justify killing it.
THAT is the invalid "consideration" you are pushing.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Get Goobs to explain why he disagrees with himselves.
That should clear things up once and for all...............if we all
don't die laughing.
Dutch
----->
I'm going to die of boredom reading your posts.
§nühw¤£f
>
> I'm going to die of boredom reading your posts.
>
>
Mr.Smartypants
but you'll keep reading them.............you can't help yourself.
You want to be present when I'm kicking your ass.
LOL!!
Dutch
LOL!!
--->
This seems like a perfect place for this <plonk>
Mr.Smartypants
You wouldn't dare killfile me.
You absolutely *have* to know what I'm saying about your boy Goobs at
all times.
You cannot live without knowing.