Jonathan Ball 5327 Shepard Avenue, Sacramento, CA95819-1731, USA

[Derek]

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Jonathan-D-Ball/Sacramento-CA/2sind2i

This little squirt who posts under a great number of nyms
http://bit.ly/1MU8oan boasts about having a Ph. D. in economics and goes
around threatening people with physical violence, and so he should be made
known to you here in alt.california and his other main haunts because he
often tries to make fellow participants known to their fellow participants.
The list of nyms he uses, often multiple times to argue and defeat himself
in a bid to feel triumphant, is far from complete and is still growing.

Jonathan Ball (real name)
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Sc...@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgen...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakho...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb29...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope

[Derek]

snipped newsgroups reinstated

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:08:10 -0800 (PST), DCI <50b...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And when you, Derek, have to go to such length to attempt to discredit Rudy, you are actually discrediting your self, all, without refuting any of his points and arguments,

No, that's false. I haven't refuted any points or argument here because he
hasn't presented any to me. I merely followed him over here because he won't
defend himself in the newsgroup he usually trolls where he's been dodging
people, including myself, for fifteen years.

>Now can your post any personal information about you

You need only go to the newsgroup I've been posting regularly from for
nearly fifteen years, with my full name in the legitimate email address I
use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian to see that Jonathan was the first to
reveal my email address today after being pressured by me to come
clean about the lies he's been spreading about having gained a Ph. D. in
economics. Sure, my full address has been posted there before and I have no
problem with that. Jonathan, on the other hand, hides behind a growing list
of nyms to keep his identity secret while posting the details of others. I'm
certainly not the first person who's identity and personal home address has
been revealed by him, and I definitely won't be the last. If he wants to
make a new post with my full name and address as the subject title, he
should expect the same in return. Now that you're aware he posted my
particulars in the subject headers before I retaliated are you going to say
that he has discredited himself more than me by doing such a thing?

>and how you arrive at the drivel you are posting?

I haven't been posting any drivel. To dodge explaining why he lied about his
academic achievements, or lack of them, he tried to turn the tables by
writing that I "clumsily pretend to a level of education and
sophistication [I] don't have, striving earnestly for good marks
It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a
massive insecurity." That's simply not true. I haven't boasted about my
academic achievements. There's nothing really to boast about. Jon, though,
has lied about his, and the proof is found in Google archives, no matter how
strongly he resents it. Years ago he often used to state that he tried but
failed to complete a Ph. D. program in economics at UCLA.

“For the record, I did not complete my Ph.D. program
in economics at UCLA, and I have never worked as an
economist.”
Jonathan Ball 8 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/53e2m2

and

"... it's important to me to be known as honest. Honesty
compels me to admit that I didn't complete my Ph.D."
Jonathan Ball 08 Jun 2003 http://bit.ly/1NdkK0O

Fair enough. No problem, though I did doubt that honesty compelled him to do
anything. But then I found posts he's made in Google archives pretending the
exact opposite, stating under no uncertain terms that he had in fact gained
something which honesty compelled him to deny he'd achieved.

[start – Doug Miller to Jonathon Ball]

> What do you have?

Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?
[end]
Leif Erickson (Jonathan Ball) 8 July 2006 http://tinyurl.com/48w68m

And

[start - "Fooled By Folksy Republicans" to Jonathan Ball

> So you're a drop-out

Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA.]
Rudy Canoza (Jonathan Ball 9 Jan 2007 http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x

And so it is Jonathan, not I who "clumsily pretend to a level of education
and sophistication [he doesn't] have, striving earnestly for good marks
It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a massive
insecurity." Hope that helps.

[newsman]

Better go check his group. Derek is right. Jonathan Ball did start a
thread with Derek's home address about an hour before he retaliated.

[james g. keegan jr.]

On 11/28/2015 4:41 PM, newsman wrote:

>>
> Better go check his group. Derek is right. Jonathan Ball did start a
> thread with Derek's home address about an hour before he retaliated.

Nope. George Plimpton replied to a post from 2002, in which Derek's
brother David and another "ar" idiot going by "JudGeDreD" got together
and posted it.

[Derek]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:44:54 Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 wrote:

>On 11/28/2015 4:41 PM, newsman wrote:
>
>>>
>> Better go check his group. Derek is right. Jonathan Ball did start a
>> thread with Derek's home address about an hour before he retaliated.
>
>Nope.

You posted my personal home address as the subject heading of a new thread
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian at 18:59:06 so that it could easily be
found in a regular Google search.

Message-ID: <ec9f1ed0-d5ba-4f44...@googlegroups.com>

I've had it posted on Usenet before by other wankers like you and I've even
posted myself since then because it's in Google archives for anyone to find
if they want to. I'm not that bothered by it. I usually post using my real
name anyway, unlike you who hides behind a long list of sock puppets, and I
use my whole name in my email address here, too. I posted yours in
retaliation 40 minutes later at 19:38:38

Message-ID: <5hvj5btkn06cbj4nl...@4ax.com>

You just can't stop lying, can you? You get caught out time and time again.

[newsman]

It don't come much simpler than that. OK I'll bite. Why did he do it and
why is he lying about doing it?

[james g. keegan jr.]

On 11/29/2015 12:36 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:44:54 Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2015 4:41 PM, newsman wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Better go check his group. Derek is right. Jonathan Ball did start a
>>> thread with Derek's home address about an hour before he retaliated.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> You posted my personal home address as the subject heading of a new thread

Another worthless bullshit lie from the insecure pompous pretentious
dog-and-cat-killing dole-scrounging blowhard. George Plimpton responded
to a post from July 2002 that *already* contained your address in the
subject line. It was not a new thread.

You lie every time. You're a congenital liar, *except* when you write
insulting stuff about your brother, which as we have seen is always true
of yourself as well.

[Derek]

Exactly! He lied, yet again. In fact, whenever Jonathan Ball is concerned on
something where the evidence is against him, you can always guarantee that
he'll try to lie his way out of trouble.

>OK I'll bite. Why did he do it and why is he lying about doing it?

The snarling little squirt did it simply to try to get under my skin for
unearthing his quotes from Google archives which clearly show how he lied on
at least two occasions about having earned a Ph.D. in economics at UCLA. It
really is as simple and straightforward as that. Ordinarily, trying to
appear more educated than what a person is to impress a fellow participant
is something that can be overlooked as just pathetic, but Jonathan's boast
has something a bit more to than that because he had hitherto said that
honesty is important to him and that honesty compelled him to admit that he
didn't gain a Ph. D. in economics. From what I wrote above, to dodge

explaining why he lied about his academic achievements, or lack of them, he

tried to turn the tables on me by writing that I "clumsily pretend to a

level of education and sophistication [I] don't have, striving earnestly for

good marks. It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a

massive insecurity." That's simply not true. I haven't boasted about my
academic achievements. There's nothing really to boast about. Jon, though,
has lied about his, and the proof is found in Google archives, no matter how

strongly he resents it. These two quotes (below) state quite categorically
that he didn't gain that Ph.D. in economics at UCLA.

“For the record, I did not complete my Ph.D. program
in economics at UCLA, and I have never worked as an
economist.”
Jonathan Ball 8 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/53e2m2

and

"... it's important to me to be known as honest. Honesty
compels me to admit that I didn't complete my Ph.D."
Jonathan Ball 08 Jun 2003 http://bit.ly/1NdkK0O

Fair enough. No problem, though I did doubt that honesty compelled him to do
anything. But then I found posts he's made in Google archives pretending the
exact opposite, stating under no uncertain terms that he had in fact gained

that Ph. D. which honesty compelled him to deny he'd achieved.

[start – Doug Miller to Jonathon Ball]

> What do you have?

Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?
[end]
Leif Erickson (Jonathan Ball) 8 July 2006 http://tinyurl.com/48w68m

And

[start - "Fooled By Folksy Republicans" to Jonathan Ball

> So you're a drop-out

Nope. Ph.D. in economics; UCLA.]
Rudy Canoza (Jonathan Ball 9 Jan 2007 http://tinyurl.com/yztzj7x

And so it is Jonathan, not I, who "clumsily pretend to a level of education

and sophistication [he doesn't] have, striving earnestly for good marks
It's fake - but also funny. It's also sad, because it bespeaks a massive

insecurity." I gave details of his home address in retaliation *after* he
posted mine yesterday afternoon, and he's trying to lie his way out of that
to play the victim, even while the record in Google archives proves that he
posted mine before I posted his. Whether someone had posted mine before he
did umpteen years ago is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he posted mine
first out of spite, and that's why I posted his in return.

[newsman]

Thanks. The facts are there. He did post yours first from a post written
13 years ago for no apparent reason. That's nasty. It's also true that
he is using 3 or 4 different identities. That's dishonest. He's using
sock puppets --- lot's of them. He's bragging a level of education and
sophistication he doesn't have. :-) That's sad. I don't want to tell you
what to do but if I were you I would stay out of this person's way. The
small amount of pleasure you get outing him might not be worth all the
aggro. He's probably insane. I've thrown him in my bozo bin.

[newsman]

On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:

snip

> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian

snip

You're vegetarians then? I often go vegetarian. I think the longest I
lasted was for about a year and a half when my girlfriend moved in with
me. She moved out and I started eating fish mostly and some bacon. I
always feel dead guilty after eating meat. I have been thinking about
trying an alternative to turkey this Christmas as a preparation for the
new year when I intend to go fully vegetarian. I'm a terrible cook. I
hardly ever take on a roast dinner. I always go vegetarian when I'm one
of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
what to take when going on a long hike in the hills. The groups are
mostly filled with people talking politics.

[Derek]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:43:23 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:

>On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>
>snip
>
>You're vegetarians then?

Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 says he eats meat, despite being
probably being one of most constant participants here under a dozen
different identities for more than 15 years, so it wouldn't surprise me in
the least to find that he's a vegetarian at heart but can't summon the
strength to see his true convictions through. The term is so far stretched
now that I define myself as a strict vegetarian if I'm asked. Some
vegetarians eat eggs, butter and even fish (pesco-vegetarian), so it does
pay to make that definition plain if ever you're asked what you'd like to
eat.

>I often go vegetarian. I think the longest I
>lasted was for about a year and a half when my girlfriend moved in with
>me. She moved out and I started eating fish mostly and some bacon. I
>always feel dead guilty after eating meat.

Okay, you're an ethical vegetarian, then. Nice to meet you.

>I have been thinking about
>trying an alternative to turkey this Christmas as a preparation for the
>new year when I intend to go fully vegetarian. I'm a terrible cook. I
>hardly ever take on a roast dinner.

If you're determined to forego meat this Christmas and you're not a very
confident cook, try booking a vegan Christmas meal at a restaurant which
caters for vegans. I'm tempted to offer you a bunch of links to vegan
alternatives but that would be wrong of me because I wouldn't be able to
follow them either. My wife cooks all my meals. You might want to invite a
few friends along for that alternative vegan Christmas as well. Book a whole
table.

>I always go vegetarian when I'm one
>of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
>around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
>discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
>what to take when going on a long hike in the hills.

Take a couple of reels of strong dental floss. It's extremely long, strong,
sterile, comes in a small waterproof container and has a thousand and one
uses from fishing for survival, bundling things together, sewing, stitching
open wounds, making trip wires to alert you or set off devices to protect
you, making an effective garrotte by using thick, shortened branches for
handles, and can even be used to clean the food out from between your teeth.

[newsman]

On 30/11/2015 17:27, Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:43:23 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:
>
>> On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>
>> snip
>>
>> You're vegetarians then?
>
> Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 says he eats meat, despite being
> probably being one of most constant participants here under a dozen
> different identities for more than 15 years, so it wouldn't surprise me in
> the least to find that he's a vegetarian at heart but can't summon the
> strength to see his true convictions through. The term is so far stretched
> now that I define myself as a strict vegetarian if I'm asked. Some
> vegetarians eat eggs, butter and even fish (pesco-vegetarian), so it does
> pay to make that definition plain if ever you're asked what you'd like to
> eat.

Good advice. Thanks.

>> I often go vegetarian. I think the longest I
>> lasted was for about a year and a half when my girlfriend moved in with
>> me. She moved out and I started eating fish mostly and some bacon. I
>> always feel dead guilty after eating meat.
>
> Okay, you're an ethical vegetarian, then. Nice to meet you.

And you. You're English ... right?

>> I have been thinking about
>> trying an alternative to turkey this Christmas as a preparation for the
>> new year when I intend to go fully vegetarian. I'm a terrible cook. I
>> hardly ever take on a roast dinner.
>
> If you're determined to forego meat this Christmas and you're not a very
> confident cook, try booking a vegan Christmas meal at a restaurant which
> caters for vegans. I'm tempted to offer you a bunch of links to vegan
> alternatives but that would be wrong of me because I wouldn't be able to
> follow them either. My wife cooks all my meals. You might want to invite a
> few friends along for that alternative vegan Christmas as well. Book a whole
> table.

That is very good advice. I know a few people to ask already. I was
hoping some of my fiends from the time when my girlfriend lived with me
might ask me along to their Christmas dinners. They have children though
and they don't know I might be spending it on my own.

>> I always go vegetarian when I'm one
>> of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
>> around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
>> discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
>> what to take when going on a long hike in the hills.
>
> Take a couple of reels of strong dental floss. It's extremely long, strong,
> sterile, comes in a small waterproof container and has a thousand and one
> uses from fishing for survival, bundling things together, sewing, stitching
> open wounds, making trip wires to alert you or set off devices to protect
> you, making an effective garrotte by using thick, shortened branches for
> handles, and can even be used to clean the food out from between your teeth.

Lol. I'm very grateful for that suggestion. Where did you get that
amazing idea? I've read a lot of books on survivalism and none of them
includes taking reels dental floss as a handy piece of kit to carry. I
think it is essential. I'm going to buy some of the waxed variety
tomorrow. Thank you very much. Are you a hiker too?

[Derek]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:36:01 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:

>On 30/11/2015 17:27, Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:43:23 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>> You're vegetarians then?
>>
>> Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 says he eats meat, despite being
>> probably being one of most constant participants here under a dozen
>> different identities for more than 15 years, so it wouldn't surprise me in
>> the least to find that he's a vegetarian at heart but can't summon the
>> strength to see his true convictions through. The term is so far stretched
>> now that I define myself as a strict vegetarian if I'm asked. Some
>> vegetarians eat eggs, butter and even fish (pesco-vegetarian), so it does
>> pay to make that definition plain if ever you're asked what you'd like to
>> eat.
>
>Good advice. Thanks.

Only too glad to help. One of the biggest issues in going vegetarian is in
knowing what's available. It's not as limited as what you may fear, and
going to a good restaurant that caters to vegetarians is a great place to
learn.

>>> I often go vegetarian. I think the longest I
>>> lasted was for about a year and a half when my girlfriend moved in with
>>> me. She moved out and I started eating fish mostly and some bacon. I
>>> always feel dead guilty after eating meat.
>>
>> Okay, you're an ethical vegetarian, then. Nice to meet you.
>
>And you. You're English ... right?

Yep.

>>> I have been thinking about
>>> trying an alternative to turkey this Christmas as a preparation for the
>>> new year when I intend to go fully vegetarian. I'm a terrible cook. I
>>> hardly ever take on a roast dinner.
>>
>> If you're determined to forego meat this Christmas and you're not a very
>> confident cook, try booking a vegan Christmas meal at a restaurant which
>> caters for vegans. I'm tempted to offer you a bunch of links to vegan
>> alternatives but that would be wrong of me because I wouldn't be able to
>> follow them either. My wife cooks all my meals. You might want to invite a
>> few friends along for that alternative vegan Christmas as well. Book a whole
>> table.
>
>That is very good advice. I know a few people to ask already. I was
>hoping some of my fiends from the time when my girlfriend lived with me
>might ask me along to their Christmas dinners. They have children though
>and they don't know I might be spending it on my own.

You might want to book a table for a nice vegetarian meal a few times before
Christmas day so that you'll have a wider knowledge on what's available and
what you'll like to include in your Christmas dinner.

>>> I always go vegetarian when I'm one
>>> of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
>>> around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
>>> discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
>>> what to take when going on a long hike in the hills.
>>
>> Take a couple of reels of strong dental floss. It's extremely long, strong,
>> sterile, comes in a small waterproof container and has a thousand and one
>> uses from fishing for survival, bundling things together, sewing, stitching
>> open wounds, making trip wires to alert you or set off devices to protect
>> you, making an effective garrotte by using thick, shortened branches for
>> handles, and can even be used to clean the food out from between your teeth.
>
>Lol. I'm very grateful for that suggestion. Where did you get that
>amazing idea? I've read a lot of books on survivalism and none of them
>includes taking reels dental floss as a handy piece of kit to carry. I
>think it is essential. I'm going to buy some of the waxed variety
>tomorrow. Thank you very much.

You're very welcome. May the fuel in your stove never run dry.

>Are you a hiker too?

No, but I did have a dream of doing the Pennine Way from Edale to Kirk
Yetholm a long time ago. Unlike you, though, I would occasionally go into
the towns that I pass along the way and grab a nice bath, a firm bed and
some good company. I'm not much of a survivalist, I don't think, even during
my better days. Glad to see you've subscribed to a.a.e.v.

[Rüdî Cänözà]

Nope - he's a self-crippled wanker.

[newsman]

On 30/11/2015 19:01, Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:36:01 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2015 17:27, Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:43:23 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> You're vegetarians then?
>>>
>>> Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 says he eats meat, despite being
>>> probably being one of most constant participants here under a dozen
>>> different identities for more than 15 years, so it wouldn't surprise me in
>>> the least to find that he's a vegetarian at heart but can't summon the
>>> strength to see his true convictions through. The term is so far stretched
>>> now that I define myself as a strict vegetarian if I'm asked. Some
>>> vegetarians eat eggs, butter and even fish (pesco-vegetarian), so it does
>>> pay to make that definition plain if ever you're asked what you'd like to
>>> eat.
>>
>> Good advice. Thanks.
>
> Only too glad to help. One of the biggest issues in going vegetarian is in
> knowing what's available. It's not as limited as what you may fear, and
> going to a good restaurant that caters to vegetarians is a great place to
> learn.
>

I think you are forgetting that I was a vegetarian for about 20 months.
I have a reasonable clue what's available because we used to regularly
have vegetarian friends round for dinner and then have dinner round
theirs. My ex was always looking for new vegan recipes to impress our
vegetarian friends and they would do the same when it was their turn to
be the host. The conversation rarely strayed far from the food we were
eating. I still get invites. I would love to be able to return the
favour in the same style and professionalism my ex did. Textured
vegetable protein from a frozen bag out of the fridge flavoured with
garlic and flopped on top of a cold plate of spaghetti isn't going to
impress them much. I'm going to take this thing on right now. I'm going
to think of it a test in survival. Eating meat makes me sick with guilt.
I returned to eating it because it's easy to cook. I want to be a better
person and get rid of all that guilt. I'm going to learn how to cook.

Great advice. But. Instead of going through all that I'm going to take
up an old offer to have dinner round one of my ex's friend's house and
see if that invitation extends to Christmas Dinner. She's separated but
still loves to host. She often invites me over but a rarely take her up
on it.

>>>> I always go vegetarian when I'm one
>>>> of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
>>>> around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
>>>> discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
>>>> what to take when going on a long hike in the hills.
>>>
>>> Take a couple of reels of strong dental floss. It's extremely long, strong,
>>> sterile, comes in a small waterproof container and has a thousand and one
>>> uses from fishing for survival, bundling things together, sewing, stitching
>>> open wounds, making trip wires to alert you or set off devices to protect
>>> you, making an effective garrotte by using thick, shortened branches for
>>> handles, and can even be used to clean the food out from between your teeth.
>>
>> Lol. I'm very grateful for that suggestion. Where did you get that
>> amazing idea? I've read a lot of books on survivalism and none of them
>> includes taking reels dental floss as a handy piece of kit to carry. I
>> think it is essential. I'm going to buy some of the waxed variety
>> tomorrow. Thank you very much.
>
> You're very welcome. May the fuel in your stove never run dry.
>

LOL. :-) It always does. I bought 3 reels yesterday. One waxed. I told a
friend about what you said and he's going to use it to hang pictures. I
don't know what it's made of. I can't break it. It's a good job it comes
with a cutter.

>> Are you a hiker too?
>
> No, but I did have a dream of doing the Pennine Way from Edale to Kirk
> Yetholm a long time ago. Unlike you, though, I would occasionally go into
> the towns that I pass along the way and grab a nice bath, a firm bed and
> some good company. I'm not much of a survivalist, I don't think, even during
> my better days. Glad to see you've subscribed to a.a.e.v.
>

That would be a hike and a half if your not experienced. During your
better days? Let me tell you ... age has nothing to do with it. Half the
people I meet on long hikes are in their 40s and 50s. Go on a few small
daily hikes to get your legs used to it and you'll be ready for the big
one by early next year. I only takes a few months to get hiking fit for
a long one if you're in reasonably good shape. Stretch to as much as you
can possibly afford to in some proper boots and some waterproof gear.
There is nothing more miserable about hiking than putting on damp
clothes in the morning after a long walk in the rain the day before.

[Derek]

Excellent! Well done for taking on that challenge. You've no doubt seen my
home address all over this newsgroup, so if you're ever in Eastbourne and
want me to prepare you some good vegan fare, be sure to tell me whether you
prefer salt or jam on your peanut butter sandwiches.

Then don't miss that offer, newsman. Don't allow yourself to fall outside
the loop just because you're not with your partner who used to do all
cooking.

>>>>> I always go vegetarian when I'm one
>>>>> of my walks. I don't hunt. I'm a survivalist and I occasionally hang
>>>>> around misc.survivalism and a few other outdoor news groups hoping for a
>>>>> discussion on walking holidays, camping tips and some good advice on
>>>>> what to take when going on a long hike in the hills.
>>>>
>>>> Take a couple of reels of strong dental floss. It's extremely long, strong,
>>>> sterile, comes in a small waterproof container and has a thousand and one
>>>> uses from fishing for survival, bundling things together, sewing, stitching
>>>> open wounds, making trip wires to alert you or set off devices to protect
>>>> you, making an effective garrotte by using thick, shortened branches for
>>>> handles, and can even be used to clean the food out from between your teeth.
>>>
>>> Lol. I'm very grateful for that suggestion. Where did you get that
>>> amazing idea? I've read a lot of books on survivalism and none of them
>>> includes taking reels dental floss as a handy piece of kit to carry. I
>>> think it is essential. I'm going to buy some of the waxed variety
>>> tomorrow. Thank you very much.
>>
>> You're very welcome. May the fuel in your stove never run dry.
>>
>LOL. :-) It always does. I bought 3 reels yesterday. One waxed. I told a
>friend about what you said and he's going to use it to hang pictures. I
>don't know what it's made of. I can't break it. It's a good job it comes
>with a cutter.

You'll find that it makes for an ideal washing line, too. I always keep a
reel of it with my other /housewife/ http://bit.ly/21ve6Jm

>>> Are you a hiker too?
>>
>> No, but I did have a dream of doing the Pennine Way from Edale to Kirk
>> Yetholm a long time ago. Unlike you, though, I would occasionally go into
>> the towns that I pass along the way and grab a nice bath, a firm bed and
>> some good company. I'm not much of a survivalist, I don't think, even during
>> my better days. Glad to see you've subscribed to a.a.e.v.
>>
>That would be a hike and a half if your not experienced. During your
>better days? Let me tell you ... age has nothing to do with it. Half the
>people I meet on long hikes are in their 40s and 50s. Go on a few small
>daily hikes to get your legs used to it and you'll be ready for the big
>one by early next year. I only takes a few months to get hiking fit for
>a long one if you're in reasonably good shape. Stretch to as much as you
>can possibly afford to in some proper boots and some waterproof gear.
>There is nothing more miserable about hiking than putting on damp
>clothes in the morning after a long walk in the rain the day before.

I think I should've mentioned earlier that I have difficulty in walking. In
fact there are days where I can barely stand up at all, and when I do I have
to sit down again in my wheelchair. When I can't bear sitting in my chair
any longer I either have to stand up again or lie down flat. When I'm lying
flat for too long I have to stand up or sit down again. It's a problem I've
had for quite a few years. I've got progressive spinal stenosis. Don't go
falling over yourself in a rush to apologise for telling me how to get
hiking fit and what not. You weren't to know because I didn't tell you. If
anyone should apologise it should be me for letting you run away with it.

[Derek]

Exactly. Why else would he bring that subject heading back after 13 years
if not to try to get under my skin?

>That's nasty. It's also true that
>he is using 3 or 4 different identities. That's dishonest. He's using
>sock puppets --- lot's of them. He's bragging a level of education and
>sophistication he doesn't have. :-)

The only person here who genuinely has a Ph.D. is Rupert. He gained his
Ph.D. in mathematics a short while ago. http://rupertmccallum.com/

>That's sad. I don't want to tell you
>what to do but if I were you I would stay out of this person's way. The
>small amount of pleasure you get outing him might not be worth all the
>aggro. He's probably insane. I've thrown him in my bozo bin.

For a good while now the only participants on this newsgroup best kept out
of your kill filters are me and Rupert. We both use our real name and use
them in our email addresses. The rest are Jonathan Ball
http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 using a growing list of dishonest nyms and sock
puppets to keep out of your kill filters. He also uses them because has a
young son and doesn't want him to know what a snarling old liar and
pretender he has for a father.

[newsman]

I received your return email and I understand your caution. Here you are.

(uzi pen) (307) (a stalking horse)

[shitbag nash]

On 12/2/2015 7:52 AM, Derek wrote:
> I think I should've mentioned earlier that I have difficulty in walking. In
> fact there are days where I can barely stand up at all, and when I do I have
> to sit down again in my wheelchair. When I can't bear sitting in my chair
> any longer I either have to stand up again or lie down flat. When I'm lying
> flat for too long I have to stand up or sit down again. It's a problem I've
> had for quite a few years.

You brought it upon yourself, and you richly deserve it.

[newsman]

Yes. He did bring it upon himself at work. But no way does anyone
deserve to spend the rest of their life in debilitating pain because of
a work injury. Only a hateful twisted person would say Derek richly
deserves it. You know, it's the little keyboard warriors like you who
wouldn't have the guts to say what they say on line in person that ruins
Usenet and makes people call for the curtailment of free speech. Your
type of on line abuse from the safety of your chair is the type of
cowardice that deserves a special kind of comeuppance which I hope
arrives sooner rather than later. *YOU* richly deserve it.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 11/30/2015 11:43 AM, newsman wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>
> snip
>
> You're vegetarians then? I often go vegetarian.

I eat vegetarians, I stay away from animal that eat meat.


--
The ideology of Liberalism is a never ending stream of contradictions.

[newsman]

On 08/12/2015 17:13, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 11:43 AM, newsman wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 23:40, Derek wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> I use at alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>
>> snip
>>
>> You're vegetarians then? I often go vegetarian.
>
> I eat vegetarians, I stay away from animal that eat meat.
>

Not sure whether you're trying to be clever or sarcastic or something.
It's true though. The majority of animals killed for our food is made up
of vegetarians. We farm only the most docile and peaceful animals, and
animals that are easy to keep. If we are supposed to eat meat why are we
content to restrict ourselves to such a small variety? And why do we
always have to cook it? Outside chicken, beef, pork and a few other
meats we eat 10 times the variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and
whatever. If we were carnivorous we would look at our pets and want to
eat them raw like we look at a bowl of colourful fruit.

[Derek]

restored newsgroups that Jonathan Ball snipped out to avoid embarrassment.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 18:21:54 -0800, Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 wrote

>On 12/2/2015 8:12 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:43:05 +0000, newsman <W...@no.net> wrote:

<restored evidence of Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 lies>

<end restore >

>
>Exactly, wrong

The evidence above shows I'm exactly right. It also shows that you've lied
on at least two occasions about gaining a Ph.D. in economics, something you
had claimed that honestly compelled you to declare you hadn't gained. You're
a proven liar Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8. How many different
identities are you using in this thread? And how many times have you trimmed
the newsgroups to just a.a.e.v. to hide your embarrassment? Let's count them
and see.

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmaîl.com>
George Plimpton <notg...@yahoo.com>
Rüdî Cänözà <ru...@phil.con>
shitbag nash <dere...@groupmail.com>

That's my genuine email address you've used in that last effort to hide your
identity, Jonathan Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8 There no lengths that you
won't go to to hide your defeats, no lie that you wouldn't tell to hide the
truth of your own inadequacy, and no limit to how many nyms and sock
puppets you would use to hold yourself up. You're a disgrace.

[Mike Colangelo]

This is just stupid. Vegetarians are always coming up with these
completely false statements about eating meat: "If we were meant to eat
meat, then we would xxxxxxxxx", where 'xxxxxxxx' is some non sequitur.

The majority of animals consumed for meat are vegetation eaters because
the majority of animals overall are predominantly vegetation eaters. In
particular, the domesticated animals from which we obtain the greatest
share of our meat are predominantly vegetation eaters. Among mammals,
predators don't domesticate well, and even if they did, we'd have to
capture or raise other animals for them to eat. It's easier and cheaper
to raise predominantly vegetation eating animals and eat them. I think
the only predominantly carnivorous animals humans eat are fish.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:56:07 -0700, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con>
wrote:

>> Not sure whether you're trying to be clever or sarcastic or something.
>> It's true though. The majority of animals killed for our food is made up
>> of vegetarians. We farm only the most docile and peaceful animals, and
>> animals that are easy to keep. If we are supposed to eat meat why are we
>> content to restrict ourselves to such a small variety? And why do we
>> always have to cook it? Outside chicken, beef, pork and a few other
>> meats we eat 10 times the variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and
>> whatever. If we were carnivorous we would look at our pets and want to
>> eat them raw like we look at a bowl of colourful fruit.

This is the most deliciously stupid thing I've read in June so far.

[Rupert]

It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
"supposed" to eat meat, right. If you're not on board with the idea
that a supernatural creator brought human beings into existence, then
the question of whether human beings are "supposed" to eat meat or not
"supposed" to eat meat doesn't really make a huge amount of sense,
there isn't any intelligent being who formulated some kind of purpose
about what human beings should or should not eat.

The reality is that most human beings have eaten at least some meat for
most of human history, and also probably human bodies are reasonably
well-designed to derive nutrition from eating meat in at least some
respects, although maybe not to the same extent as with animals who are
obligate carnivores. But it's also pretty safe to say that a lot of
human beings on the planet have it within their power to be healthy and
happy without eating meat if they choose to. So then you'd want to
examine whether there are any good reasons why they should do that.

You could certainly try to argue that our choices about which species
we are willing to eat is in part determined by cultural factors, for
example in some cultures people are comfortable with eating dogs and
cats but not in others. This might also be part of the explanation why
it's only a relatively small range of species of animal that we use for
food.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:11:10 -0000 (UTC), "Rupert"
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:56:07 -0700, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Not sure whether you're trying to be clever or sarcastic or
>> something. >> It's true though. The majority of animals killed for
>> our food is made up >> of vegetarians. We farm only the most docile
>> and peaceful animals, and >> animals that are easy to keep. If we are
>> supposed to eat meat why are we >> content to restrict ourselves to
>> such a small variety? And why do we >> always have to cook it?
>> Outside chicken, beef, pork and a few other >> meats we eat 10 times
>> the variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and >> whatever. If we
>> were carnivorous we would look at our pets and want to >> eat them
>> raw like we look at a bowl of colourful fruit.
>>
>> This is the most deliciously stupid thing I've read in June so far.
>
>It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
>"supposed" to eat meat, right.

The comment above asks the question, "why do we only eat docile, easy
to care for animals instead of all animals?" as if we should be
raising, say, tigers like we do cattle.

It also asks "if we were carnivorous" which I thought everyone knew we
were not, but apparently there are some people so ignorant they don't
know what the word means.

It also assumes that we always cook meat before we eat it (which isn't
true) as if this is a mystery.

Like I said, deliciously stupid.

[Frank]

Men require more nutrients than other species which can often
manufacture what they need and don't need the variety of foodstuffs.
Among these nutrients are essential amino acids and while you can almost
get the proper balance from a vegetarian diet you will not get it quite
right and be malnourished. Vegetarians that don't eat the animal but
use milk and egg products are OK as they get the proteins they need.

[Fletch]

On 6/7/2017 7:56 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
> This is just stupid.

PARK THAT JETTA!!!


https://www.arivify.com/property/search/Lj5tUOUy7

Owner Name Jonathan Ball
Address 5327 Shepard Ave
City Sacramento
State CA
Zip Code 95819
Land Use Resid. Single Family
Land Size 0.168 acres
Appraised Value $420130
Assessed Value $420130
Legal Description Sac:00501110170000

http://reach150.com/solarcity-northern-california/review/62015/jonathan-ball

Jonathan Ball
Field Energy Consultant SolarCity Northern California
Sacramento, CA

Recommendations

Be the first to leave a recommendation for Jonathan Ball.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-ball-271869132

[Fletch]

On 6/7/2017 7:56 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:

> a bowl of colourful fruit.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kkiijcde923vtin8e...@4ax.com>,

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

> The comment above asks the question, "why do we only eat docile, easy
> to care for animals instead of all animals?" as if we should be
> raising, say, tigers like we do cattle.

Because originally we used animals for mostly milk, eggs, and labour. So we
started with animals that were gregarious and not so dangerous. We then took
over their breeding decisions and evolved the docile animals we have today.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Spain]

On 6/8/2017 9:41 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <kkiijcde923vtin8e...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> The comment above asks the question, "why do we only eat docile, easy
>> to care for animals instead of all animals?" as if we should be
>> raising, say, tigers like we do cattle.
>
> Because originally we used animals for mostly milk, eggs, and labour.

No...originally we fled from them and then hunted them for meat.

Animal husbandry was a later development, you lying trailer trash:

http://www.ancient.eu/Animal_Husbandry/

Animal husbandry began in the so-called Neolithic ('new stone’)
Revolution around 10,000 years ago...

> So we started with animals that were gregarious and not so dangerous. We then took
> over their breeding decisions and evolved the docile animals we have today.

Your history of the UK is broad but generally accurate.

Now we watch Brits slaughtered by Muzzies and tel them to "keep calm".

[Byker]

"Rupert" wrote in message news:ohbesu$vmj$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
> "supposed" to eat meat, right.

If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine. I'll take a
nice thick sirloin any day...

[Spain]

Sirloin = good!

Filet = the best!

[Rupert]

You've shared with me the fact that you prefer to eat steak, which is
certainly very fascinating, but you couldn't really call that some kind
of serious contribution to a discussion of ethical vegetarianism. I
suppose you mind think I have some good reason to take an interest in
what you wrote.

[Byker]

"Rupert" wrote in message news:ohc169$2vr$1...@dont-email.me...

Byker wrote:
>>
>> If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine. I'll
>> take a nice thick sirloin any day...
>
> You've shared with me the fact that you prefer to eat steak, which is
> certainly very fascinating, but you couldn't really call that some kind of
> serious contribution to a discussion of ethical vegetarianism. I suppose
> you mind think I have some good reason to take an interest in what you
> wrote.

Ethical vegetarian: Animal Rights Whacko

http://www.vegblogger.com/blog/2010/03/ethical-vegetarianism-what-it-is-and-why-its-what-i-call-myself.html

[Rupert]

So, you might be saying that the case for ethical vegetarianism is so
weak that to take it seriously you'd have to be a whacko. So, if you
choose, you can try to offer reasons for that point of view. The
purpose of the newsgroup is to debate such questions. So we can have a
debate about if you like, although I'm starting to think there's not a
very good chance that you have the intellectual ability to engage in
serious debate.

Alternatively, you can simply decline to offer reasons for your point
of view and just continue to hold it and act accordingly, obviously
without me taking you seriously. You can certainly do that if you want
to, and I have no problem with that atall.

[Spain]

On 6/8/2017 11:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
> Byker wrote:
>
>> "Rupert" wrote in message news:ohc169$2vr$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Byker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine.
>>>> I'll take a nice thick sirloin any day...
>>>
>>> You've shared with me the fact that you prefer to eat steak, which
>>> is certainly very fascinating, but you couldn't really call that
>>> some kind of serious contribution to a discussion of ethical
>>> vegetarianism. I suppose you mind think I have some good reason to
>>> take an interest in what you wrote.
>>
>> Ethical vegetarian: Animal Rights Whacko
>>
>> http://www.vegblogger.com/blog/2010/03/ethical-vegetarianism-what-it-i
>> s-and-why-its-what-i-call-myself.html
>
> So, you might be saying that the case for ethical vegetarianism is so
> weak that to take it seriously you'd have to be a whacko.

Ever starve for a week?

> So, if you
> choose, you can try to offer reasons for that point of view. The
> purpose of the newsgroup is to debate such questions. So we can have a
> debate about if you like, although I'm starting to think there's not a
> very good chance that you have the intellectual ability to engage in
> serious debate.

Only the vastly non-serious consider there to be an ethical choice
between plant life and animal life.

Life = life.

Plants may not have faces but they do feel pain.

> Alternatively, you can simply decline to offer reasons for your point
> of view and just continue to hold it and act accordingly, obviously
> without me taking you seriously. You can certainly do that if you want
> to, and I have no problem with that atall.

Poofter.

[Dutch]

"Veganism" is an early example of the kind of identity politics that has
become the scourge of the western world.

[Rupert]

I find myself feeling unclear about why you call it an example of
identity politics.

[Dutch]

Veganism is highly politicized, AND adherents identify with it strongly.
They see themselves a separate group within the culture, often
misunderstood and victimized (inconvenienced)It's classic identity poltics.

Look at the link above, it is a perfect example. The guy writes an
entire web page discussing his internal debate over the words he will
use to identify himself. He is immersed in this self-identification
dilemma. Navel gazing at its finest.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <p4SdnTLvkdcXHqTE...@supernews.com>,

We have bred domesticated plants to provide all the nutrition we need with easy
preparation and digestion. Wild plants are niggards; wild animals are necessary
to get enough easily digested protein and a few other nutrients. It's possible
to survive solely on domesticated plants.

Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror or try to run away.
When you eat salad, all the vegetables are still alive, and only die ground
slowly between your molars or exposed, still living, to your stomach acid. Even
lobsters die much more quickly in boiling water than the apple you're chewing.
Vegans can celebrate their moral superiority that vegetables cannot express
their pain.

[Rupert]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <p4SdnTLvkdcXHqTE...@supernews.com>,
> "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
> > "Rupert" wrote in message news:ohbesu$vmj$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >
> > > It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
> > > "supposed" to eat meat, right.
> >
> > If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine.
> > I'll take a nice thick sirloin any day...
>
> We have bred domesticated plants to provide all the nutrition we need
> with easy preparation and digestion. Wild plants are niggards; wild
> animals are necessary to get enough easily digested protein and a few
> other nutrients. It's possible to survive solely on domesticated
> plants.
>
> Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror or try to
> run away. When you eat salad, all the vegetables are still alive,
> and only die ground slowly between your molars or exposed, still
> living, to your stomach acid. Even lobsters die much more quickly in
> boiling water than the apple you're chewing. Vegans can celebrate
> their moral superiority that vegetables cannot express their pain.

You seem to be hung up on this idea that eating vegetables causes
substantial amounts of pain, maybe you'd like to tell me more about how
you think it would be possible for a vegetable to experience pain. I
don't really think you can say that there's any kind of nervous system
here. Are you suggesting some kind of pain receptors might be present,
or that you can observe an aversive reaction to noxious stimuli?

[Spain]

Yes.

[Curt Portland]

On 6/8/2017 1:02 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Hate-filled words




Better take your nitroglycerin pills, bypass boy, your arteries are
clogging up again...



BAXTURD's PETER METER

|=====|
| |
| 9 |
| | ,-%/%|
| 6 | _,-' \//%\
| | _,-' \%/|%
| 3 | / / ) __,-- /%\
| | \__/_,-'%(% ; %)%
| 0 | %\%, %\
|=====| '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
"I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."

[Spain]

On 6/8/2017 2:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <p4SdnTLvkdcXHqTE...@supernews.com>,
> "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
>> "Rupert" wrote in message news:ohbesu$vmj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
>>> "supposed" to eat meat, right.
>>
>> If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine. I'll take a
>> nice thick sirloin any day...
>
> We have bred domesticated plants to provide all the nutrition we need with easy
> preparation and digestion.

Just like we did with domesticated chickens and rabbits.

> Wild plants are niggards;

Never speak of wild rice that way!

> wild animals are necessary
> to get enough easily digested protein and a few other nutrients.

Chow down!

> It's possible to survive solely on domesticated plants.

With a dearth of certain critical nutrients.

> Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror or try to run away.
> When you eat salad, all the vegetables are still alive, and only die ground
> slowly between your molars or exposed, still living, to your stomach acid.

Classic plant brutality.

> Even
> lobsters die much more quickly in boiling water than the apple you're chewing.

Humane kill mandates freezer time first.

> Vegans can celebrate their moral superiority that vegetables cannot express
> their pain.

And so they do.

[Spain]

On 6/8/2017 3:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> In article <p4SdnTLvkdcXHqTE...@supernews.com>,
>> "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rupert" wrote in message news:ohbesu$vmj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
>>>> "supposed" to eat meat, right.
>>>
>>> If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine.
>>> I'll take a nice thick sirloin any day...
>>
>> We have bred domesticated plants to provide all the nutrition we need
>> with easy preparation and digestion. Wild plants are niggards; wild
>> animals are necessary to get enough easily digested protein and a few
>> other nutrients. It's possible to survive solely on domesticated
>> plants.
>>
>> Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror or try to
>> run away. When you eat salad, all the vegetables are still alive,
>> and only die ground slowly between your molars or exposed, still
>> living, to your stomach acid. Even lobsters die much more quickly in
>> boiling water than the apple you're chewing. Vegans can celebrate
>> their moral superiority that vegetables cannot express their pain.
>
> You seem to be hung up on this idea that eating vegetables causes
> substantial amounts of pain, maybe you'd like to tell me more about how
> you think it would be possible for a vegetable to experience pain.

It has life, you tear it out and kill it = pain.

> I
> don't really think you can say that there's any kind of nervous system
> here. Are you suggesting some kind of pain receptors might be present,
> or that you can observe an aversive reaction to noxious stimuli?

https://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162

Nice Try, Vegans: Plants Can Actually Hear Themselves Being Eaten

Thanks to a new report from the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU),
researchers have discovered that plants respond to the specific sounds
caterpillars make when eating them, and what's more, the noises even
prompt the plants into putting up additional defenses. We already knew
that plant growth could change in reaction to certain sounds, but this
is the first instance we've seen of a plant actually protecting itself
from a predator's chomping, specifically.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

The new research, he says, is in a field called plant neurobiology —
which is something of a misnomer, because even scientists in the field
don't argue that plants have neurons or brains.

"They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of
taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ...
integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they
do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it,
because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have
played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants — and
the plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals — even
though the plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. "It is somehow
hearing what is, to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on
its leaves."

Pollan says plants have all the same senses as humans, and then some. In
addition to hearing, taste, for example, they can sense gravity, the
presence of water, or even feel that an obstruction is in the way of its
roots, before coming into contact with it. Plant roots will shift
direction, he says, to avoid obstacles.

So what about pain? Do plants feel? Pollan says they do respond to
anesthetics. "You can put a plant out with a human anesthetic. ... And
not only that, plants produce their own compounds that are anesthetic to
us."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112942/Plants-talk-say-scientists.html

Plants can talk, say scientists

Plants feel pain, say scientists.

Every stroke of those pruning shears could have the average shrub
writhing in agony.

Researchers in Bonn, Germany, found plants give off a gas when under
'attack'.

Super-sensitive microphones picked up a 'bubbling' sound from a healthy
plant. But this rose to a piercing screech when it was under threat.
Even a tiny insect bite could have an effect.

'The more a plant is subjected to stress, the louder the signal,' said
Dr Frank K¸hnemann.

[Frank]

Would not it be ethical for such folks like fructarians that eat only
stuff fallen from the plant to eat only those animals that died a
natural death?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohcegr$ito$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror.

[Byker]

"Siri Cruise" wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-C2735...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Plants have the advantage that they can't scream in terror.

You'd like this tune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMW24HgGVE

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 08:41:39 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <kkiijcde923vtin8e...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> The comment above asks the question, "why do we only eat docile, easy
>> to care for animals instead of all animals?" as if we should be
>> raising, say, tigers like we do cattle.
>
>Because originally we used animals for mostly milk, eggs, and labour.

We also ate them.

>So we
>started with animals that were gregarious and not so dangerous. We then took
>over their breeding decisions and evolved the docile animals we have today.

Correct-- for once.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:23:21 -0000 (UTC), "Rupert"
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Byker wrote:
>
>> "Rupert" wrote in message news:ohbesu$vmj$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >
>> > It's meant to be some kind of discussion about whether humans are
>> > "supposed" to eat meat, right.
>>
>> If your idea of a meal is a tofuburger on an oat-bran bun, fine. I'll
>> take a nice thick sirloin any day...
>
>You've shared with me the fact that you prefer to eat steak, which is
>certainly very fascinating, but you couldn't really call that some kind
>of serious contribution to a discussion of ethical vegetarianism.

It think people who don't think it's ethical to eat meat should eat
something else instead.

[Frank]

Right and shut up about it.

[tRudy Crayola]

On 6/8/2017 6:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:56:07 -0700, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Not sure whether you're trying to be clever or sarcastic or something.
>>> It's true though. The majority of animals killed for our food is made up
>>> of vegetarians. We farm only the most docile and peaceful animals, and
>>> animals that are easy to keep. If we are supposed to eat meat why are we
>>> content to restrict ourselves to such a small variety? And why do we
>>> always have to cook it? Outside chicken, beef, pork and a few other
>>> meats we eat 10 times the variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and
>>> whatever. If we were carnivorous we would look at our pets and want to
>>> eat them raw like we look at a bowl of colourful fruit.
>
> This is the most deliciously stupid thing I've read in June so far.


My Dog is a Carnivore and would just love to have Mike Colangelo aka
Rudy Canoza for breakfast. But I won't allow my pet to imbibe in such a
fatty diet.
>


--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento

[Rupert]

You've just put forward a claim that every time you deliberately end
the life of a living organism you must be causing pain. You obviously
haven't presented sufficient reason to think this is true.

If what you said was true, that may or may not mean that my current
strategy for reducing the amount of suffering caused in order to
produce my food is poorly thought through. If that was indeed the case,
then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy. By way of
producing evidence for your point of view, you've given three links to
news stories discussing views expressed by research scientists. If I
choose to investigate whether they've actually produced any
peer-reviewed papers supporting their views, and then examine the
evidence that they've offered for their point of view, then I can do
that, and maybe that will lead me to think that I have good reason to
change my behaviour.

In the post to which I am replying, you presented a bunch of copypasta
from three news websites yet again. This has to be at least the fourth
time you've posted the exact same information. I read it carefully the
first time you posted it. Your reasons for thinking there's some
benefit to be had from posting it four times are unclear.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohgi11$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy. By way of

Life eats life. The better strategy is to learn to live that fact.

[max headroom]

In news:chine.bleu-6CD83...@news.eternal-september.org, Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <kkiijcde923vtin8e...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>> The comment above asks the question, "why do we only eat docile, easy
>> to care for animals instead of all animals?" as if we should be
>> raising, say, tigers like we do cattle.

> Because originally we used animals for mostly milk, eggs, and labour....

It's not easy to get milk and labor from undomesticated animals. Much easier to kill and cook them.

[Rupert]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <ohgi11$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy. By way
> > of
>
> Life eats life. The better strategy is to learn to live that fact.

You obviously don't have any good reason to think that I'm not fully
aware of that rather obvious fact, and perfectly capable of living with
it. However I have decided to make an effort to reduce the amount of
suffering required to produce my food. You may think there's no good
reason why anyone would want to do that. But you obviously haven't
offered me any good reason why I should agree with you.

[Byker]

Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> Life eats life.

Uh-huh: http://tinyurl.com/y9xfacqn

http://i.imgur.com/LYUfxPM.gifv

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohh1bj$4ag$1...@dont-email.me>,

They have a nasty habit of trying to run away or fight back. Poor sportsmanship.

[Gunner Asch]

Very well stated!! Kudos.


>
>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/10/2017 8:23 AM, Rupert wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> In article <ohgi11$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy. By way
>>> of
>>
>> Life eats life. The better strategy is to learn to live that fact.
>
> You obviously don't have any good reason to think that I'm not fully
> aware of that rather obvious fact

Actually he has very good reason.

[Rupert]

It certainly seems to me quite strongly that it wouldn't be possible
for you to believe that what you wrote is true unless you were
suffering from pretty severe brain damage. But you, of course, may
think that I have that totally wrong. You are certainly welcome to
offer me reasons why I should change my mind if you wish.

[Rupert]

You do realize, that what you have written here, is that this guy has
very good reason to believe that I'm not aware of the fact that living
organisms eat other living organisms? You do realize that that's what
you've written?

I mean, it's been a very long time since you actually managed to
surprise me with the level of stupidity of something you wrote. I'm
very impressed that you're still able to do that.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohmros$8f1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

We no longer need domestic animals for labour, leather, or wool. What's left is
eggs, milk, and meat. Suppose you convince rest of us to stop murderring animals
and chicken embryoes for meat and eggs, and stop stealing their milk. Then why
should we continue to spend so much money feeding them, shelterring, treating
their disease, help their births? The animals would be turn loose or escape from
abandonned bankrupt farms.

And they would be dead within a year. The lucky ones will be killed by
predators. Most would slowly starve or die of horribly painful diseases and
infections. It's a simple fact that domesticated animals would have a hard time
surviving without humans to take care of them. Feral horses maybe. Domesticated
animals raised for meat will die, but they are going to die anyway.

Wild prey tend to die _after_ the predator starts eating them; domestic prey are
nearly always killed first, and most under laws that require the killing be
quicker and less painful than wild predation.

Life eats life. Herbivores, carnivores, disease bacteria, parasitic worms,
vultures tearing up the dying once they are too weak to fight back, it's an eat
and be eaten world. You can pretend a moral superiority to eating a prey that is
incapable of screaming in pain or terror, unable to run away, or resist beyond
chemical defences, but don't expect rest of us to join your delusion.


I like lettuce, cucumbers, oranges, almonds, and many other plants. I can
understand someone who finds plants tastier and concentrates on what they like.
I can also understand people who cannot afford animal food; the variety of
domesticated plants can provide all the necessary abd digestible nutrition.
People with kidney problems have to avoid protein. But I reject any notion that
such a diet is morally superior.

[Gunner Asch]

He occasionaly does slip to a lower level..I think its a level he
falls to...then when enough brain cells fail and die off..he drops to
an even lower level.

Kinda sad really...shrug...before long they will be fitting him with
piss bag and no longer letting him out of bed, as his brain continues
to shut down.

[Rupert]

> Wild prey tend to die after the predator starts eating them; domestic

> prey are nearly always killed first, and most under laws that require
> the killing be quicker and less painful than wild predation.
>
> Life eats life. Herbivores, carnivores, disease bacteria, parasitic
> worms, vultures tearing up the dying once they are too weak to fight
> back, it's an eat and be eaten world. You can pretend a moral
> superiority to eating a prey that is incapable of screaming in pain
> or terror, unable to run away, or resist beyond chemical defences,
> but don't expect rest of us to join your delusion.
>
>
> I like lettuce, cucumbers, oranges, almonds, and many other plants. I
> can understand someone who finds plants tastier and concentrates on
> what they like. I can also understand people who cannot afford
> animal food; the variety of domesticated plants can provide all the
> necessary abd digestible nutrition. People with kidney problems have
> to avoid protein. But I reject any notion that such a diet is morally
> superior.

In the event of a universal overnight transition to veganism, which is
of course pretty much impossible, there'd be a practical problem about
what to do with all the farm animals. You'd have to try to figure out
what could be done to stop them from suffering and dying if that was at
all possible. That might be quite hard. But a universal overnight
transition to veganism is pretty much impossible, so this has no real
practical significance. In the event of a gradual transition to
universal veganism, the number of farm animals in existence will
gradually decrease until finally it gets down to zero, and the
practical problem which you describe won't arise. In any case it's
pretty likely that lab-grown meat will be developed pretty soon before
we manage to convince large numbers of people to go vegan.

You haven't shown that I am not succeeding in my goal of reducing the
amount of suffering required to produce my food. And you haven't shown
that I don't have a good moral reason to try to do that. So you haven't
given any good reasons why there's anything wrong with the position I'm
taking.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/12/2017 12:58 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2017 8:23 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ohgi11$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy. By
>>>>> way of
>>>>
>>>> Life eats life. The better strategy is to learn to live that fact.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't have any good reason to think that I'm not fully
>>> aware of that rather obvious fact
>>
>> Actually he has very good reason.
>
> It certainly seems to me quite strongly that it wouldn't be possible
> for you to believe that what you wrote is true unless you were
> suffering from pretty severe brain damage.

Wrong.

[Richard Persing]

Says this guy:
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/104042282269066802602/album/AF1QipMWHvl9LhICpcO02BX0_pe2B3_vX5DSI027A5-m/AF1QipMRCTMhAsP2g4tdGNiR1zJAqZfZPlZja1bUcu1a?source=pwa#5297722097241260450

(http://tinyurl.com/hfnsujb)

Right.

[Rudy Canoza]

So no need to go on with this bit of idiocy.

[Rudy Canoza]

Dutch: another newbie.

[Rupert]

Well, he's sufficiently stupid that he didn't realize that what he was
saying was dumb. So actually, there was a need to continue with what I
wrote, if I wanted to communicate with him effectively about the
reasons why it was dumb.

[Rupert]

I see. So you're saying that people who read my posts have very good
reason to believe that I'm not aware that living organisms eat other
living organisms, and by making this observation you display remarkably
astute intelligence.

[Rupert]

The central point being made is that Jonathan Ball (who might very well
be you) is saying some stuff which isn't really all that smart. Of
course, when you post this image, that really doesn't change the fact
that this is extremely obvious.

[Rudy Canoza]

It isn't. You "ara" morons always seem to forget it. Humans eating
other animals is no different conceptually than lions and wolves and
sharks eating other animals. Some animals eat other animals, that's all
- but you dummies want to read more into it than is warranted.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/12/2017 6:20 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2017 12:58 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2017 8:23 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <ohgi11$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then I'd want to know about it and adopt a better strategy.
>>>>>>> By way of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Life eats life. The better strategy is to learn to live that
>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't have any good reason to think that I'm not
>>>>> fully aware of that rather obvious fact
>>>>
>>>> Actually he has very good reason.
>>>
>>> It certainly seems to me quite strongly that it wouldn't be possible
>>> for you to believe that what you wrote is true unless you were
>>> suffering from pretty severe brain damage.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> I see.

Nope.

[Preston Hamblin]

No.

[Rupert]

He made the claim that if the vegan's recommendations were universally
acted upon there would be a practical problem about what to do with all
the farm animals. I addressed that point in my response, and that's
what I was referring to when I said "what he was saying was dumb". What
you are discussing now is totally unrelated to that.

Yes, you're right, some animals eat other animals. In the case of
humans eating other animals, three points are salient. First of all,
humans are fully capable of being healthy and happy without eating
animal flesh. With many other species of animal who eat other animals,
this is not the case. Second, for humans living in modern industrial
nations who eat meat, the process of producing that food for them
causes quite a lot more harm than the amount of harm that a carnivorous
animal causes in the process of getting access to its food. The third
point to be made is that humans have the ability to observe that in the
process of producing animal flesh for themselves to eat, they must
cause significant amounts of harm, merely in order to obtain a
particular type of food which they think they will find more pleasant
to eat than the plant-based alternative. They have the ability to
observe that and ponder the moral ramifications of it, they understand
the consequences of the choices they are making and are morally
responsible for them. A carnivorous animal, on the other hand, can't
really be reasonably expected to ponder the moral ramifications of its
actions, it does cause harm but it can't really be held morally
responsible for that, you couldn't reasonably expect that it would do
anything else.

So those are the important ways in which the situation of humans eating
animals is notably different from the situation of animals eating other
animals. And you were fully aware of all these points already, even
while you made the rather idiotic statement "Humans eating other

animals is no different conceptually than lions and wolves and sharks

eating other animals". No-one could say that any of this is very hard
to figure out, either. It doesn't really take a huge amount of
brain-power for someone to notice the three points I mentioned for
themselves, pretty much immediately.

It may be that the other guy I've been talking to isn't smart enough to
figure all this out for himself. However, you quite definitely are. You
were fully aware of these points and have had them pointed out to you
many times.

So when you wrote "you `ara' morons", as though the use of the word
"moron" was somehow apt, this was not correct because I am not the one
who has been giving evidence of being a moron.

[Rupert]

Ah. So you're saying I just don't have all that much insight into
what's going on.

[Rupert]

You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart. Is it
that you have now noticed this thanks to my helpfully pointing it out
for you, and as a result you now feel like a bit of an idiot, so that's
why you're snipping almost all of what I wrote and writing "No",
because you think maybe this will distract attention from the fact that
you said something remarkably stupid in quite recent memory?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart. Is it

Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is not of moral or
intellectual superiority. This is your free clue for the day.

[Rupert]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart. Is
> > it
>
> Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is not of
> moral or intellectual superiority. This is your free clue for the day.

The remarks I am making, to the effect that Jonathan Ball recently said
something that isn't really all that bright, are totally unrelated to
any beliefs I may have about my level of intelligence or how ethical I
am. My level of intelligence is simply not the issue. The point is
simply that someone with a brain who read what he wrote would be able
to confirm that he said something pretty stupid, independently of what
my level of intelligence might happen to be. If you had a brain, you'd
be able to see that too. I've spelt out the reasons for thinking I'm
right about that pretty clearly. No-one could really say this is an
issue where there's all that much room for reasonable doubt.

With regard to my estimate of my own level of intelligence and my
estimate of how ethical I am, if you are really curious to know, sure,
I believe that I am quite intelligent compared to the general
population and also quite a lot more intelligent than either one of you
two. There's a pretty solid evidence-based case to be made for that
based on my achievements in life, and also I would think most people
would be able to confirm it simply be reading what has been written in
this thread. So yeah, that's definitely what I think, and it may well
be that you take that as a sign that I don't really have a clue, and
you are certainly perfectly entitled to think that if you want to, that
isn't really any skin off my nose.

And about my estimate of how ethical I am, I do not believe I have any
strong claim to be seen as more ethical than the average person in our
society. However, I did take the step of trying to reduce the amount of
suffering that has to be caused in order to produce my food, and I
think you can make a pretty good case that if I was actually successul
at doing that then that was something that I had good moral reason to
do.

So when you were saying I have no good reason to believe myself to be
morally superior to either one of you two, I'd say you're probably
right, I have no especially good reason to think that. When you say I
have no good reason to believe myself to be intellectually superior to
either one of you two, I'd say you'd probably have to be wrong, there's
a pretty good evidence-based case to be made that I'm a lot more
intelligent than either one of you two. So now you know my opinion and
I know yours. You obviously saw some value in sharing your opinion so I
thought I might as well share mine.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohnr87$vnv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> He made the claim that if the vegan's recommendations were universally
> acted upon there would be a practical problem about what to do with all

You ignore that few domesticated plants and animals would not survive without
constant tending by humans. Those that are not commercially viable and not taken
in as pets are killed (if lucky) or left to die. You want the extinction of
whole species or subspecies of cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, catfish,
and other animals.

The feral horses will compete with other grazers. Predator populations will
shoot up to bring the grazers back down to the carrying capacity of the grazing
land. Places without predators will starve grazers or require humans to continue
to cull the feral horses and deer.

If you get your way and convert everyone to veganism, it doesn't matter if it's
immediate or gradual: the domesticated animals will be killed off. You attempt
to salve your conscience by evoking a gradual extinction, but they will still
all die. You can only be vegan and save the animals by agreeing to let rest of
us eat animals. You need us to sin against veganism to claim your moral
highground.

> Yes, you're right, some animals eat other animals. In the case of
> humans eating other animals, three points are salient. First of all,
> humans are fully capable of being healthy and happy without eating

This is only possible with recent inventions of milling, baking, cooking, and
plants like wheat and apples that are easier to digest than wild plants were.
Our primate cousins have longer intestines to extract enough nutrients to live.
Humans on the same diet would starve.

> this is not the case. Second, for humans living in modern industrial
> nations who eat meat, the process of producing that food for them
> causes quite a lot more harm than the amount of harm that a carnivorous
> animal causes in the process of getting access to its food. The third

Depends on what you mean by 'harm'. We almost always kill our prey more quickly
and painlessly than other predators. Most of our prey live much easier lives,
with diseases and injuries treated promptly and effectively, reducing pain; they
are not in constant fear of predation; and because of our efficient plant food
production, they require relatively less land than wild animals. The large
amount of land they do use is because of the human population, not inefficient
feeding.

> point to be made is that humans have the ability to observe that in the
> process of producing animal flesh for themselves to eat, they must
> cause significant amounts of harm, merely in order to obtain a

Every animal born will die. So killing an animal cannot be considerred 'harm':
their death is inevitable consequence of their birth. The difference then is the
manner of death. Humans usually kill quickly and ensure death before
butcherring. Other predators usually kill slowly, often by strangulation or
disembowelment.

> observe that and ponder the moral ramifications of it, they understand

I have no moral ramifications to killing animals. I don't want to do it myself,
being rather squeamish, but I don't fool myself that some animal will live
forever if I don't eat it.

> So those are the important ways in which the situation of humans eating
> animals is notably different from the situation of animals eating other
> animals. And you were fully aware of all these points already, even

Yes. Humans are usually more merciful in the killing, and help our domesticated
animals thrive everywhere we go before the killing. They survive in numbers and
ecosystems they could never achieve without humans. They are much more
sucessful, in biological terms, than their wild cousins.

> while you made the rather idiotic statement "Humans eating other
> animals is no different conceptually than lions and wolves and sharks
> eating other animals". No-one could say that any of this is very hard

Yes, it is different. We are usually merciful. Other predators rarely have
excess energy to be merciful: they must be efficient no matter how much
sufferring they inflict. Dolphins do have excess energy, and they use it for
sadistic predation. Few humans will kill the way a dolphin will; those who do in
places like the US are assumed mentally ill.

> It may be that the other guy I've been talking to isn't smart enough to

Oh, yeah, you are such a tower of intellect. Gophers do envy you your
construction.

[Rupert]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <ohnr87$vnv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > He made the claim that if the vegan's recommendations were
> > universally acted upon there would be a practical problem about
> > what to do with all
>
> You ignore that few domesticated plants and animals would not survive
> without constant tending by humans. Those that are not commercially
> viable and not taken in as pets are killed (if lucky) or left to die.
> You want the extinction of whole species or subspecies of cattle,
> sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, catfish, and other animals.

If animal agriculture stopped, it would certainly be pretty safe to say
that the outcome would be that a lot of species of domesticated animals
would go extinct or at least very close to extinct. We might hope that
that could happen in such a way that we didn't have animals already in
existence suffering substantially, or very prematurely dying, either
from being killed or from lack of access to adequate nutrition. We
might hope that we could simply have a gradual reduction in the number
of animals of that species brought into existence by humans each year,
until it got to the point where we just weren't bringing them into
existence anymore. At the end of the process, the result would be that
the number of animals of that species in existence would be zero, or
very close to zero. Yes, you're right, that would be the outcome, and
most ethical vegans would probably hold the view that there's nothing
wrong with bringing about that outcome. If we had that outcome and we
also had a situation where we weren't inflicting large amounts of
suffering on farm animals in order to produce our food anymore, most
ethical vegans would take the view that that would be on balance worth
doing. That's of course in the event that vegans actually succeed in
persuading everyone to be vegan. You could quite plausibly argue that
that's not especially likely in any case, but even if it never happens
the individual vegan can still make a difference to how much suffering
happens by making a change in his own consumption choices, and he can
encourage others to do likewise, and that's still worth doing, even if
it doesn't get to the point of completely eliminating the institution
of animal agriculture. If I think that it is worth while to reduce the
amount of suffering experiences by farm animals, then I can say that
continuing to be a vegan is worth doing, regardless of whether it ever
gets to the point that everyone else decides to do the same as well.

> The feral horses will compete with other grazers. Predator
> populations will shoot up to bring the grazers back down to the
> carrying capacity of the grazing land. Places without predators will
> starve grazers or require humans to continue to cull the feral horses
> and deer.

You seem to be raising the possibility that if large numbers of people
go vegan, there might be side-effects in terms of increased suffering
of wild animals that I haven't thought about yet. That may be. So that
would mean that if there was some sort of serious prospect of very
large numbers of people going vegan, you'd want to think about that,
and you'd need to try to figure out whether we can prevent those
undesirable side-effects somehow, or maybe we even need to re-evalute
whether it's such a great idea for large numbers of people to go vegan.
But right now there isn't any serious prospect of a large percentage of
the population going vegan. The current situation is that a very small
percentage of the population is vegan, and if I continue to be vegan
myself and try to encourage more people to take the step of going
vegan, there's probably a net benefit to be had from doing that in
terms of reduction of animal suffering. If circumstances changed, I
might start to have some good reason to change my mind about the best
strategy for reducing animal suffering.

> If you get your way and convert everyone to veganism, it doesn't
> matter if it's immediate or gradual: the domesticated animals will be
> killed off.

It would certainly be safe to say there won't be very many of them in
existence anymore, yes. We might hope that that will happen as a result
of a gradual reduction in the number of farm animals brought into
existence each year, rather than some kind of situation where we
suddenly have a large number of farm animals that have to be killed.

> You attempt to salve your conscience by evoking a gradual
> extinction, but they will still all die.

All organisms on the planet have to eventually die. If we could somehow
bring about a situation where as few animals as possible have to die a
long time before they've reached their natural lifespan, then that
would be great. It wouldn't be very good if we suddenly had a situation
where large numbers of farm animals have to be killed because a lot of
people have gone vegan. But I can't see any strong reason for thinking
there's a serious risk of that happening in the near future.

I'm not able to see any strong reason that you've given me why being
vegan and encouraging others to be vegan is not a good approach to
trying to reduce the total amount of suffering and premature death of
non-human animals, for the moment at least. But if you want to let me
know about a way that you think would be better, I'm certainly totally
happy to hear you out.

> You can only be vegan and
> save the animals by agreeing to let rest of us eat animals. You need
> us to sin against veganism to claim your moral highground.

I don't follow what reasoning led you to this conclusion. You're
wanting to claim that by continuing to eat meat you're achieving some
sort of benefit for farm animals? Certainly happy to hear you out on
this if you want to spell it out a bit more.

> > Yes, you're right, some animals eat other animals. In the case of
> > humans eating other animals, three points are salient. First of all,
> > humans are fully capable of being healthy and happy without eating
>
> This is only possible with recent inventions of milling, baking,
> cooking, and plants like wheat and apples that are easier to digest
> than wild plants were. Our primate cousins have longer intestines to
> extract enough nutrients to live. Humans on the same diet would
> starve.

You seem to be raising the possibility that at an earlier stage of
human history humans might have genuinely needed to eat meat in order
to have a good chance of staying alive. I have no reason to think
that's totally impossible. So what of it?

> > this is not the case. Second, for humans living in modern industrial
> > nations who eat meat, the process of producing that food for them
> > causes quite a lot more harm than the amount of harm that a
> > carnivorous animal causes in the process of getting access to its
> > food. The third
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'harm'. We almost always kill our prey
> more quickly and painlessly than other predators.

No, I don't take that claim to be supported by the evidence. You need
to look more closely into the current situation about what happens to
animals in the slaughterhouse. Quite often the process would involve
substantially more pain and fear that what would be involved in an
animal being killed by a predator.

Not that that matters in any case, because of course the main component
of the harm that I'm talking about comes from the long period of
suffering that the animal has to endure while it is being grown in
order to be eventually slaughtered. For example, you could check out
the facts regarding the current situation for broiler chickens and what
their lives are like. I can direct you towards factual information
about that if you wish. About 28 chickens each year have to be
slaughtered in order to produce the food eaten by a typical omnivorous
consumer, much larger than the corresponding number for any other
species of farm animal (except for farmed fish). Each one of those
would have to live lives of about six weeks before being slaughtered.
The main component of their suffering comes not from the eventual
slaughter, although the suffering involved there would certainly be
substantial, but the nature of the life they have to endure before
being eventually slaughtered. So, as I say, if you think I ought to
direct you towards factual information bearing out my claim that the
amount of suffering involved would be very large, I can certainly do
that. Here is one source of factual information, for example:

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818904/welfare-of-broilers-in-the-eu.pdf

So you can look through that and then you can let me know if you think
you have any reason to believe that this information is not accurate,
perhaps directing me towards your own sources of information about the
matter. But if you agree that the information presented there is
correct, I'd say you have to agree that the harm caused to a broiler
chicken in the course of using it to produce food involves
substantially more harm than just that which is involved in the final
process of slaughter.

> Most of our prey
> live much easier lives, with diseases and injuries treated promptly
> and effectively, reducing pain; they are not in constant fear of
> predation; and because of our efficient plant food production, they
> require relatively less land than wild animals.

But I believe you're totally mistaken about this for reasons given
immediately above, so in order to resolve that disagreement we'd have
to examine the facts about the nature of the lives that farm animals
actually lead on most modern farms at the moment. I believe that your
conception of what their lives are like is quite seriously out of step
with the reality. So, in order to resolve that disagreement, we must
examine the relevant facts. I've directed you towards one source of
factual information that I take to be reliable, you're allowed to offer
me reasons for thinking it is not reliable or to direct me towards your
own sources of contrary factual information that you think are reliable.

> The large amount of
> land they do use is because of the human population, not inefficient
> feeding.

Don't follow the reasoning here. A lot of land use is required to
sustain a farm animal through the period of time before it is
eventually slaughtered, because substantial crop production has to
happen to provide it with the food it needs to stay alive for that
length of time. You seem to want to claim that that's not correct, but
you haven't really offered any evidence to back that up.

> > point to be made is that humans have the ability to observe that in
> > the process of producing animal flesh for themselves to eat, they
> > must cause significant amounts of harm, merely in order to obtain a
>
> Every animal born will die. So killing an animal cannot be
> considerred 'harm': their death is inevitable consequence of their
> birth.

Given that the same logic would lead us to the conclusion that I would
do you no harm by killing you, we probably have to conclude that that's
pretty absurd. Of course, for a conscious individual who has a desire
to stay alive, premature death is a harm. In any case, premature death
is not the main harm being discussed here, the main harm to be
considered is the suffering that the farm animal must endure while it
is alive.

> The difference then is the manner of death. Humans usually
> kill quickly and ensure death before butcherring. Other predators
> usually kill slowly, often by strangulation or disembowelment.

First of all, you're probably wrong to say that humans usually kill
farm animals in a manner that causes less suffering than a predator
causes to a wild animal by killing it, but even supposing you're right
about that, the harm involved in slaughter is not the main harm under
discussion. We're talking about the harm involved in being made to
endure the kind of life they live. You obviously think that the life of
a typical farm animal is really great. So, as I say, to resolve our
disagreement we must examine the relevant factual information, I've
presented you with some factual information that I think is relevant.
Looking forward to your attempt to present facts that support your
point of view.

> > observe that and ponder the moral ramifications of it, they
> > understand
>
> I have no moral ramifications to killing animals. I don't want to do
> it myself, being rather squeamish, but I don't fool myself that some
> animal will live forever if I don't eat it.

You believe that there aren't any moral ramifications to speak of, but
I've offered various pretty good reasons in this post for thinking that
you've got that wrong.

> > So those are the important ways in which the situation of humans
> > eating animals is notably different from the situation of animals
> > eating other animals. And you were fully aware of all these points
> > already, even
>
> Yes. Humans are usually more merciful in the killing, and help our
> domesticated animals thrive everywhere we go before the killing.

But for reasons given above, you're probably totally wrong about that.

> They
> survive in numbers and ecosystems they could never achieve without
> humans. They are much more sucessful, in biological terms, than their
> wild cousins.

But on the other hand, no, probably not, see for example the
information about broiler chickens that I gave you earlier.

> > while you made the rather idiotic statement "Humans eating other
> > animals is no different conceptually than lions and wolves and
> > sharks eating other animals". No-one could say that any of this is
> > very hard
>
> Yes, it is different. We are usually merciful.

But on the other hand, no, because when you actually examine the facts
about how farm animals are treated we see that this belief totally
fails to correspond to reality. Some factual information backing that
up has already been presented.

> Other predators rarely
> have excess energy to be merciful: they must be efficient no matter
> how much sufferring they inflict. Dolphins do have excess energy, and
> they use it for sadistic predation. Few humans will kill the way a
> dolphin will; those who do in places like the US are assumed mentally
> ill.
>
> > It may be that the other guy I've been talking to isn't smart
> > enough to
>
> Oh, yeah, you are such a tower of intellect. Gophers do envy you your
> construction.

Seems like you want to convey the idea that you think I over-estimate
my level of intelligence.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohoa1h$a6s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> from being killed or from lack of access to adequate nutrition. We
> might hope that we could simply have a gradual reduction in the number
> of animals of that species brought into existence by humans each year,
> until it got to the point where we just weren't bringing them into
> existence anymore. At the end of the process, the result would be that

Sterilisation or otherwise preventing natural mating and reproduction is just
another form of genocide. It is not permitted applied to humans. For all your
vegan superior morality, you still demand domestic animals be treated less
fairly than humans or wild animals.

> most ethical vegans would probably hold the view that there's nothing
> wrong with bringing about that outcome. If we had that outcome and we
> also had a situation where we weren't inflicting large amounts of
> suffering on farm animals in order to produce our food anymore, most
> ethical vegans would take the view that that would be on balance worth

The reason animal cruelty is a crime is that it can be a precursor to human
cruelty. So after your successful barnyard genocide, yes, I am concerned you
will try to genocide humans to fit us into your ideal society. It's been tried
before by those with a superior mortality to us mere humans.

> the individual vegan can still make a difference to how much suffering
> happens by making a change in his own consumption choices, and he can

And you continue to assume plants do not suffer when you eat them. Do you know
why onions, garlic, and peppers taste the way they do? I doubt it. It's a
chemical defence to discourage animals eating them. Thorns are a physical
defence to discourage predation by herbivores. And you happily crunch away on
cyanide laced almonds ignoring that the obvious attempts by plants to avoid
being eaten. Attempts which imply, yes, they do suffer when you eat them. But
they can't scream in terror or run away so you can maintain your blissful
ignorance.

> You seem to be raising the possibility that if large numbers of people

And you require the existence of heretics to veganism to save the animals so you
can pretend your superiority.

> go vegan, there might be side-effects in terms of increased suffering
> of wild animals that I haven't thought about yet. That may be. So that

But.....but.....but you keep telling us how intelligent you are.

> would mean that if there was some sort of serious prospect of very
> large numbers of people going vegan, you'd want to think about that,
> and you'd need to try to figure out whether we can prevent those

No, idiot. _You_ think about it, and _you_ figure it out. This is _your_
problem. _You_ solve it.

> > Depends on what you mean by 'harm'. We almost always kill our prey
> > more quickly and painlessly than other predators.
>
> No, I don't take that claim to be supported by the evidence. You need

That's because you don't want to see the evidence. It's not that hard to find to
find videos of mammalian predators strangling prey, or tearing out tendons,
arteries, and entrails. Chasing down terrified prey. Raptors sinking talons till
death comes from internal bleeding, or butcherring living prey with their beaks.
Birds and reptiles swallowing prey whole which finally dies on the way to the
stomach. Marine predators that swallow prey alive, or diembowel it, or sting it
with painful poison. Wasps that lay eggs in paralyzed prey so their larvae eats
their way through the living flesh. Spiders that paralyze their prey and bind it
in webbing, then let the prey live in terror until hungry. Spiders inject
enzymes into insect prey that slowly dissolve the inside of the insect. Bacteria
grow into horrible, painful abcesses that only kill after days of agony.

Humans mostly do things like a quick decapitating chop or a bolt gun that
destroys the brain in centiseconds. Even a halal bleeding is quick, only a
minute or so until unconsciousness, compared to the strangulation of a lion,
fangs and claws embedded as it probes for the carotid.

> Not that that matters in any case, because of course the main component
> of the harm that I'm talking about comes from the long period of
> suffering that the animal has to endure while it is being grown in

As compared to constant fear of predation, hunger, thirst. I've seen deer so
thirsty they will come out of the hills into suburbs in midday. And the pain of
untreated infection and injury. Who feeds a deer with a broken leg, or sets the
bone? Wild animals that cannot defeat parasites with their immune systems have
to suffer while being slowly eaten from the inside. Look for videos of
wildebeests with blind staggers; that's caused by worms eating its brain. A
mammal that cracks a tooth can abcess without treatment. Constant, terrible pain
as the bacteria squeezes nerves and eats through bone until finally, mercifully,
enough gets in the blood to poison the animal.

> species of farm animal (except for farmed fish). Each one of those
> would have to live lives of about six weeks before being slaughtered.

Typical land vertebrate is only aware of the past one to ten minutes. They
cannot know if they have lived six weeks, six years, or an hour.

> Given that the same logic would lead us to the conclusion that I would
> do you no harm by killing you, we probably have to conclude that that's

Humans are aware of time exceeding our own lives. We remember our entire lives
from age 5. We also recreate the emotions of other humans when we see their
faces. Other species do not experience grief as universally as humans.

> You believe that there aren't any moral ramifications to speak of, but

I know I have no moral qualms. You are free to flay yourself, but that's your
kink, not mine.

> > They
> > survive in numbers and ecosystems they could never achieve without
> > humans. They are much more sucessful, in biological terms, than their
> > wild cousins.
>
> But on the other hand, no, probably not, see for example the
> information about broiler chickens that I gave you earlier.

Their wild cousins are stuck in Asian forests. Biology counts success as
population and geographical distribution. By that reasonning domestic plants and
animals have tricked humans into doing all the hard labour to make them wildly
successful.

Wild plant seeds are lucky to land a hundred meters from their parents. Tulips
have conned humans into carrying them from Holland to all over the world.

> > Other predators rarely
> > have excess energy to be merciful: they must be efficient no matter
> > how much sufferring they inflict. Dolphins do have excess energy, and
> > they use it for sadistic predation. Few humans will kill the way a
> > dolphin will; those who do in places like the US are assumed mentally
> > ill.

> Seems like you want to convey the idea that you think I over-estimate
> my level of intelligence.

What? Nothing about dolphins?

And you're still an idiot.

[Rupert]

Siri Cruise wrote:

> In article <ohoa1h$a6s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > from being killed or from lack of access to adequate nutrition. We
> > might hope that we could simply have a gradual reduction in the
> > number of animals of that species brought into existence by humans
> > each year, until it got to the point where we just weren't bringing
> > them into existence anymore. At the end of the process, the result
> > would be that
>
> Sterilisation or otherwise preventing natural mating and reproduction
> is just another form of genocide.

But on the other hand, no, obviously not, because it's really pretty
easy to see that what you just said is not really true, and also I
never actually recommended sterilization or preventing natural mating
and reproduction. The reason new farm animals are constantly coming
into existence is because people deliberately take steps to make female
animals pregnant by means of artificial insemination, because they
believe that bringing new farm animals into existence and using them
for the purposes of producing food will be economically profitable. So
if the demand for animal products falls so that they no longer have any
reason to believe that bringing new farm animals into existence will be
economically profitable, then they'll stop engaging in that activity.
Maybe farm animals will end up reproducing just as part of the natural
course of things? That's certainly always possible. If new farm animals
end up coming into existence and there's just no morally permissible
means available by which we can stop that from happening, then you'd
face the practical problem of how their needs can be met, if indeed
anyone is willing to take the necessary steps to make that happen. So
when there's some kind of serious prospect of a practical problem like
that arising in the near future, then sure, we'd probably better try to
work out what can be done about it. But that doesn't mean that there's
any especially strong reason why, at present, being vegan and promoting
veganism is not a good strategy for reducing animal suffering.

> It is not permitted applied to
> humans. For all your vegan superior morality, you still demand
> domestic animals be treated less fairly than humans or wild animals.

> > most ethical vegans would probably hold the view that there's
> > nothing wrong with bringing about that outcome. If we had that
> > outcome and we also had a situation where we weren't inflicting
> > large amounts of suffering on farm animals in order to produce our
> > food anymore, most ethical vegans would take the view that that
> > would be on balance worth
>
> The reason animal cruelty is a crime is that it can be a precursor to
> human cruelty. So after your successful barnyard genocide, yes, I am
> concerned you will try to genocide humans to fit us into your ideal
> society.

Which is obviously not an especially rational concern to have. That
would have to be taken as a sign that you're not really thinking
straight.

> It's been tried before by those with a superior mortality to
> us mere humans.
>
> > the individual vegan can still make a difference to how much
> > suffering happens by making a change in his own consumption
> > choices, and he can
>
> And you continue to assume plants do not suffer when you eat them.

Certainly I believe that at the moment, because I think that given the
evidence about the matter that I've examined so far, the balance of
evidence favours that view. Yes, you're right, I think probably plants
don't suffer.

> Do
> you know why onions, garlic, and peppers taste the way they do? I
> doubt it. It's a chemical defence to discourage animals eating them.
> Thorns are a physical defence to discourage predation by herbivores.
> And you happily crunch away on cyanide laced almonds ignoring that
> the obvious attempts by plants to avoid being eaten. Attempts which
> imply, yes, they do suffer when you eat them.

But on the other hand, no, because these considerations you're talking
about don't really give me any strong reason to think that they do
suffer. But, okay, let's say they do. So if I came to believe that
plants do actually suffer, and that this fact made some kind of
difference to what strategy was best calculated to reduce the amount of
suffering that must be caused in order that I may be able to eat food,
then in that case I'd adopt a different strategy that seemed better
aimed to meet that goal. So just as soon as I've actually encountered
decent evidence that your point of view is correct and that that gives
me a good reason to change my behaviour in that way, then yeah, sure,
that's what I'll do.

> But they can't scream
> in terror or run away so you can maintain your blissful ignorance.
>
> > You seem to be raising the possibility that if large numbers of
> > people
>
> And you require the existence of heretics to veganism to save the
> animals so you can pretend your superiority.

It really seems to me that you don't have any very good reason to
believe that, I really don't know why you think you have a good reason
to believe that I "require the existence of heretics to veganism", and
I'm pretty sure you don't have good reason to believe that...

You've also repeatedly insinuated that I'm trying to make some kind of
claim to moral superiority, when in fact that is not really true. I
don't believe myself to have any good reason to think that, on balance,
my total behaviour is morally better than yours. That may or may not be
the case, I don't know. Probably in the matter of trying to reduce the
amount of suffering required to produce my food my behaviour would be a
little bit better than yours, but that thought is not the main
motivation for continuing the behaviour. The main motivation is the
desire to reduce the total amount of suffering experienced by farm
animals.

> > go vegan, there might be side-effects in terms of increased
> > suffering of wild animals that I haven't thought about yet. That
> > may be. So that
>
> But.....but.....but you keep telling us how intelligent you are.

I might have mentioned on occasion that I evaluate my own intelligence
pretty highly, and I've got a vibe that you think that belief of mine
is mistaken. I have it within my power to weigh up whether I want to
care about your opininon.

> > would mean that if there was some sort of serious prospect of very
> > large numbers of people going vegan, you'd want to think about that,
> > and you'd need to try to figure out whether we can prevent those
>

> No, idiot. You think about it, and you figure it out. This is your
> problem. You solve it.

In the event that I see any good reason why I need to start working on
that problem immediately, then I certainly intend to apply myself to
the task. Right now I'm not convinced that I have strong reason to
worry about it in the near future, because it's very unlikely that any
substantial part of the population will end up being vegan any time
soon.

> > > Depends on what you mean by 'harm'. We almost always kill our prey
> > > more quickly and painlessly than other predators.
> >
> > No, I don't take that claim to be supported by the evidence. You
> > need
>
> That's because you don't want to see the evidence. It's not that hard
> to find to find videos of mammalian predators strangling prey, or
> tearing out tendons, arteries, and entrails. Chasing down terrified
> prey. Raptors sinking talons till death comes from internal bleeding,
> or butcherring living prey with their beaks. Birds and reptiles
> swallowing prey whole which finally dies on the way to the stomach.
> Marine predators that swallow prey alive, or diembowel it, or sting
> it with painful poison. Wasps that lay eggs in paralyzed prey so
> their larvae eats their way through the living flesh. Spiders that
> paralyze their prey and bind it in webbing, then let the prey live in
> terror until hungry. Spiders inject enzymes into insect prey that
> slowly dissolve the inside of the insect. Bacteria grow into
> horrible, painful abcesses that only kill after days of agony.

I'm fully aware of the intensity of the suffering that has to be
endured by a lot of wild animals, I don't take your view that the
suffering of farm animals is less intense to be especially well-founded.

> Humans mostly do things like a quick decapitating chop or a bolt gun
> that destroys the brain in centiseconds. Even a halal bleeding is
> quick, only a minute or so until unconsciousness, compared to the
> strangulation of a lion, fangs and claws embedded as it probes for
> the carotid.

Actually there are pretty good grounds for thinking that the process of
slaughter would often involve a lot more suffering than what you're
implying, but in any case this isn't really the main point as the key
issue is the intensity of the suffering that must be endured by the
animals in the time period leading up to their slaughter, while they
are still being kept alive on the farm in order to be grown for the
purpose of food production.

> > Not that that matters in any case, because of course the main
> > component of the harm that I'm talking about comes from the long
> > period of suffering that the animal has to endure while it is being
> > grown in
>
> As compared to constant fear of predation, hunger, thirst. I've seen
> deer so thirsty they will come out of the hills into suburbs in
> midday. And the pain of untreated infection and injury. Who feeds a
> deer with a broken leg, or sets the bone? Wild animals that cannot
> defeat parasites with their immune systems have to suffer while being
> slowly eaten from the inside. Look for videos of wildebeests with
> blind staggers; that's caused by worms eating its brain. A mammal
> that cracks a tooth can abcess without treatment. Constant, terrible
> pain as the bacteria squeezes nerves and eats through bone until
> finally, mercifully, enough gets in the blood to poison the animal.

Yes, wild animals suffer a lot too, so are you suggesting this makes
some kind of difference to the point I'm making? You mean, given that a
lot of wild-animal suffering is happening, you think that means we just
don't have any good reason to refrain from causing large amounts of
suffering to farm animals in order to produce our food?

> > species of farm animal (except for farmed fish). Each one of those
> > would have to live lives of about six weeks before being
> > slaughtered.
>
> Typical land vertebrate is only aware of the past one to ten minutes.

I'm very skeptical that you actually have any good reason to believe
that.

> They cannot know if they have lived six weeks, six years, or an hour.
>
> > Given that the same logic would lead us to the conclusion that I
> > would do you no harm by killing you, we probably have to conclude
> > that that's
>
> Humans are aware of time exceeding our own lives. We remember our
> entire lives from age 5. We also recreate the emotions of other
> humans when we see their faces. Other species do not experience grief
> as universally as humans.

I doubt that the claims you make about the lesser intensity of grief in
other species are especially well-founded. Most likely, you're just not
in a position to know whether animals of other species experience grief
as intensely as we do. And in any case, the significance of that to the
discussion isn't really all that clear.

> > You believe that there aren't any moral ramifications to speak of,
> > but
>
> I know I have no moral qualms.

Yes indeed. It certainly comes as no surprise to me at all when you say
that.

> You are free to flay yourself, but
> that's your kink, not mine.

Thanks for giving me permission. It's generous of you.

> > > They
> > > survive in numbers and ecosystems they could never achieve without
> > > humans. They are much more sucessful, in biological terms, than
> > > their wild cousins.
> >
> > But on the other hand, no, probably not, see for example the
> > information about broiler chickens that I gave you earlier.
>
> Their wild cousins are stuck in Asian forests. Biology counts success
> as population and geographical distribution. By that reasonning
> domestic plants and animals have tricked humans into doing all the
> hard labour to make them wildly successful.

I'm afraid I can't really fathom the point of this paragraph. If you're
trying to claim that broiler chickens living in modern farms thrive to
a greater extent that chickens who live in the wild, then you've got to
produce some kind of evidence for that claim.

> Wild plant seeds are lucky to land a hundred meters from their
> parents. Tulips have conned humans into carrying them from Holland to
> all over the world.

It would have to be pretty safe to say that this remark you just made
is totally irrelevant.

> > > Other predators rarely
> > > have excess energy to be merciful: they must be efficient no
> > > matter how much sufferring they inflict. Dolphins do have excess
> > > energy, and they use it for sadistic predation. Few humans will
> > > kill the way a dolphin will; those who do in places like the US
> > > are assumed mentally ill.
>
> > Seems like you want to convey the idea that you think I
> > over-estimate my level of intelligence.
>
> What? Nothing about dolphins?

There wasn't any particular point that I wished to make about dolphins.

> And you're still an idiot.

I certainly have no doubt that you sincerely believe that, and I have
it within my power to weigh up whether I want to attach any importance
to the fact that you have that opinion.

[Preston Hamblin]

Yep.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/12/2017 10:52 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart. Is it
>
> Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is not of moral or
> intellectual superiority. This is your free clue for the day.

I've been instructing him on this point for over a dozen years.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/13/2017 12:31 AM, Rupert wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>> In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart. Is
>>> it
>>
>> Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is not of
>> moral or intellectual superiority. This is your free clue for the day.
>
> The remarks I am making,

Are horseshit - agreed.

[Rupert]

Probably no real hope that the situation will improve for me, then, I
guess, I might just have to live with the fact that I don't really have

[Rupert]

Well, let's think this through, to see if you're onto something.

The remark I made was that, when you said that Siri Cruise had good
reason to think that I wasn't aware that living organisms eat other
living organisms, what you were saying wasn't really all that smart.
And you're saying that's horseshit. So that would have to mean that
you're claiming that actually Siri Cruise does have pretty good reason
to think that I just wasn't aware of the fact that living organisms eat
other living organisms. So that's pretty much the size of it? You're
saying the evidence supports the view that I'm just not aware of the
fact that living organisms eat other organisms?

[Rupert]

It's certainly very kind of you to put so much effort into trying to
get me to have better insight into the way things are. I'm sure you'll
get there in the end. Just keep making your assertions over and over
again, and eventually it'll probably get to the point where I start
believing that you're speaking the truth simply because you assert your
claims over and over again for such a long period of time. I'm sure
that strategy will work.

[Rupert]

Seems as though what you're saying here is, you're pretty sure that I
have this belief that I'm morally and intellectually superior to you,
and you've been trying to tell me for more than twelve years that I've
simply got that wrong.

Let me briefly discuss my actual views about the matter. On the
question of whether I'm morally superior to you, I don't think I'd be
able to say that I know that for sure. Mainly because I just don't know
all that much about the actions you've performed in the past. Sometimes
you've claimed that you've demonstrated an ability to hold down a
pretty well-remunerated job, maybe that might count of some evidence of
good moral character. When we look at how your usenet behaviour
compares to mine, and when we compare the amount of effort that you and
I put into reducing the amount of suffering required to produce our
food, we'd probably have to say that in those two departments there's
some evidence that my behaviour is a bit better than yours. Derek has
made a few statements to me about things you said to him in private
conversation which might count as some evidence of not especially good
moral character. So, regarding whether I'm morally superior to you, the
final verdict would have to be, it's possible but we can't really say
we have sufficient evidence at this point to say we know ti for sure.

Regarding whether I'm intellectually superior to you, if you're talking
about whether I'd be able to out-perform you on an IQ test then I
really don't see how you can call that into question. I expect you
probably have some other measure of intelligence in mind. You might
hold the view, for example, that I over-estimate my ability to
construct cogent arguments to support my point of view and that you
show stronger skills in that area. My view about that would be, it's
pretty safe to say you must have that wrong. I'm pretty sure I must be
right to thing that I do a much better job of supporting my point of
view with argument than you do. I won't be totally astonished if you're
not fully convinced of this, of course.

So, am I morally superior to you, couldn't really say that with a huge
amount of confidence, am I intellectually superior to you, well,
there's a pretty strong case to be made for that view. So there you
are. That's what I think.

Maybe you'd like to offer me reasons to conclude that my views about
this are mistaken.

[Preston Hamblin]

Nope.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/13/2017 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2017 10:52 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You said something quite recently that really wasn't very smart.
>>>> Is it
>>>
>>> Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is not
>>> of moral or intellectual superiority. This is your free clue for
>>> the day.
>>
>> I've been instructing him on this point for over a dozen years.
>
> Seems as though what you're saying here is,

You already replied to the post. You only get one reply.

[Rupert]

So it looks like what happened here is this. First of all, you put
forward this claim that Siri Cruise had pretty strong reason to believe
that I just wasn't aware of the fact that living organisms eat other
living organisms. Then I responded that it seemed to me that you
couldn't really believe that that was true unless you were suffering
severe brain damage, but you replied that that was not correct, and
that I needed to take this as sign that I just don't have very much
insight into the way things are. Then in addition you remarked that
there's probably no meaningful hope for me that the situation will
improve in any way. So, if I thought that you were right about all
that, I suppose I'd be well-advised to take on board that I just don't
have very much insight into how things are, and probably that situation
will never change, and I'll just have to figure out how to cope with it
somehow. If I was actually the slightest bit inclined to take your
claims seriously, that is. So I guess that pretty much sums up the
content of the conversation we've been having.

[Rupert]

Except that you're obviously mistaken about that given that it looks as
though I managed to make two replies.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ohp0as$o6q$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Probably no real hope that the situation will improve for me, then, I
> guess, I might just have to live with the fact that I don't really have
> all that much insight into what's going on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[Preston Hamblin]

No, I suggested that you want to draw an invidious distinction between
non-human animals eating other animals, and humans doing it.

[Preston Hamblin]

On 6/13/2017 11:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>
>> On 6/13/2017 8:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> Preston Hamblin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2017 10:52 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> In article <ohnrd8$ft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rupert"
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You said something quite recently that really wasn't very
>>>>>> smart. Is it
>>>>>
>>>>> Though you be a legend in your mind, your outward standing is
>>>>> not of moral or intellectual superiority. This is your free
>>>>> clue for the day.
>>>>
>>>> I've been instructing him on this point for over a dozen years.
>>>
>>> Seems as though what you're saying here is,
>>
>> You already replied to the post. You only get one reply.
>
> Except that you're obviously mistaken about that

No.