Do I have ADD ?//A Resounding **NO**
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Do I have ADD ?//A Very Resounding ***NO***(Not a chance in a
million!)
Art Wholeflaffer wrote:
>somebody from somewhere wrote:
>Someone said that some people have ADD, but the shrink said
> that if I can concentrate that I did not have it!
>This medical professional knows what he is talking about.
>Be VERY careful if they want to hook you on
>habit-forming medication; that could be the worst
>decision of your life.
>Take care friend and please keep us posted.
>Art
As an addendum to the above information; it is important to keep in
mind the even if ADD was diagnosed; it could very well be a
wrong diagnosis. Recently, there has been a "rush to judgement" to
try
and get as many ADD cases out there as possible. I still would say
that
the chances of you having it are very very small, perhaps one in
a million!!
Although it is necessary to get at least two opinions from local
physicians or mental-health specialists. Although my personal
opinion is you do not have ADD, so quit worrying and start
living. Plus don't hang around this newsgroup to long, it is
loaded with a bunch of losers which include: a porno writier,
a crazed war-monger, a totalitarian control-freak, a "Rogue
Cancellor", a few pseudo-intellectuals, one person that keeps
writing the same message over and over again, a few Nazis and
Anti-Democracy Idiots, and your general human cast-offs in the
cess pool of life!
I'm sure that answer gave you some confort and inspiration
to not fall to the bottom of the ADD ocean.
Rest assured that we are aware of how this so-called syndrome is being
exploited and we are standing up to this. We are winning some very
major battles but the war against the patient is still being fought,
but I am encouraged that we will eventually win!!
After a decade and a half, my information has been proven to be 100%
correct and accurate. Now that MANY prestigious medical organizations
have come out against the diagnosis of ADD, and have stated
definitively that ADD does NOT exist, there is no need to be concerned
about this phony spin-drome. Let me state that again: ADD does NOT
exist, and never has. So take a deep breath and rest assured that
there is nothing wrong with you. Goof-balls such as Proby and Wright
have been laughed out of this newsgroup years ago. So have other
useful idiots such as Palmer, Stan and Parsons. We didn't need them
and didn't want them and now they are gone, to which we can happily
state: good riddance to bad bad rubbish.
Take care
dh
>Do I have ADD ?//A Resounding **NO**
>Do I have ADD ?//A Very Resounding ***NO***(Not a chance in a
>million!)
>
>Art Wholeflaffer wrote:
>
>>somebody from somewhere wrote:
>>Someone said that some people have ADD, but the shrink said
>> that if I can concentrate that I did not have it!
>>This medical professional knows what he is talking about.
>>Be VERY careful if they want to hook you on
>>habit-forming medication; that could be the worst
>>decision of your life.
>>Take care friend and please keep us posted.
>>Art
>
>As an addendum to the above information; it is important to keep in
>mind the even if ADD was diagnosed; it could very well be a
>wrong diagnosis. Recently, there has been a "rush to judgement" to
>try
>and get as many ADD cases out there as possible. I still would say
>that
>the chances of you having it are very very small, perhaps one in
>a million!!
Everyone has ADD to some degree. Whether or not it's
to a high enough degree that it has a negative influence on a
person's life is what's in question, and even if so just knowing
what the problem is could be enough to help a person deal
with it in a successful way if they don't want to use medication.
After learning what the problem was, unfortunately long after
I was out of school where it caused a great problem that I had
no understanding about at the time--I've been able to deal with
it a lot better than before I knew what was going on. I did used
to wonder how in the hell these people can keep their attention
and interest on one thing for so long at a time though...and I used
to wonder that some people could just sit there, doing nothing,
for hours and hours at a time, and be *happy and content* with
doing so. Now I have a better understanding, and know to fight
myself back to whatever I'm trying to concentrate on and do it
deliberately.
>Although it is necessary to get at least two opinions from local
>physicians or mental-health specialists. Although my personal
>opinion is you do not have ADD, so quit worrying and start
>living. Plus don't hang around this newsgroup to long, it is
>loaded with a bunch of losers which include: a porno writier,
>a crazed war-monger, a totalitarian control-freak, a "Rogue
>Cancellor", a few pseudo-intellectuals, one person that keeps
>writing the same message over and over again, a few Nazis and
>Anti-Democracy Idiots, and your general human cast-offs in the
>cess pool of life!
Which are you?
>I'm sure that answer gave you some confort and inspiration
>to not fall to the bottom of the ADD ocean.
Another option would be that if he/she does have it,
accept the fact and deal with it instead of just denying it.
It may seem strange to you, but there are those who
believe recognition and acceptance of a problem is the
first step in overcoming it. That's not just true about the
brain, but also the car, and the oven, and plumbing
problems, leaks in roofs, rotting floors, broken shoe laces,
and every other sort of problem.
>Rest assured that we are aware of how this so-called syndrome is being
>exploited and we are standing up to this. We are winning some very
>major battles but the war against the patient is still being fought,
>but I am encouraged that we will eventually win!!
>
>After a decade and a half, my information has been proven to be 100%
>correct and accurate. Now that MANY prestigious medical organizations
>have come out against the diagnosis of ADD, and have stated
>definitively that ADD does NOT exist,
Since everyone has it to some extent, it seems likely they are lying.
Since I myself have it to the extent that it makes it very hard for me
to keep my attention focussed, I know from personal experience that
it does exist. Since I know it does exist, it brings up the usual ng
questions: Are you really ignorant and clueless enough to believe what
you told this person? Or are you really not that incredibly ignorant and
clueless but are being deliberately dishonest? I would guess the latter,
which brings up another classic ng question: Why? or WTF???
>there is no need to be concerned
>about this phony spin-drome. Let me state that again: ADD does NOT
>exist, and never has. So take a deep breath and rest assured that
>there is nothing wrong with you.
How do you know whether he has trouble paying attention or not?
I do, I know it, and no matter who lies that I don't I do and almost
certainly always will. What could change it?
>Goof-balls such as Proby and Wright
>have been laughed out of this newsgroup years ago. So have other
>useful idiots such as Palmer, Stan and Parsons.
What problems did they recognise in people that you don't want
taken into consideration?
dh
>On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <sci...@zzz.com> wrote:
>
>>take a deep breath and rest assured that
>>there is nothing wrong with you.
>
> How do you know whether he has trouble paying attention or not?
How?
>I do, I know it, and no matter who lies that I don't I do and almost
>certainly always will. What could change it?
What?
>>Goof-balls such as Proby and Wright
>>have been laughed out of this newsgroup years ago. So have other
>>useful idiots such as Palmer, Stan and Parsons.
>
> What problems did they recognise in people that you don't want
>taken into consideration?
What problems?
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:39:00 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>take a deep breath and rest assured that
> >>there is nothing wrong with you.
>
> > How do you know whether he has trouble paying attention or not?
>
> How?
>
> >I do, I know it, and no matter who lies that I don't I do and almost
> >certainly always will. What could change it?
>
> What?
>
> >>Goof-balls such as Proby and Wright
> >>have been laughed out of this newsgroup years ago. So have other
> >>useful idiots such as Palmer, Stan and Parsons.
>
> > What problems did they recognise in people that you don't want
> >taken into consideration?
>
> What problems?
Please, for your own good, try to relax. I am an expert on these
subjects and I can assure you that you do NOT have ADD! You never
have and you never will. Those are the undisputed facts! Now go live
your life and rest assured that you do not have anything more than
anybody else has!! That is GOOD NEWS!
dh
>On Apr 11, 6:04 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:39:00 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>> >On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>take a deep breath and rest assured that
>> >>there is nothing wrong with you.
>>
>> > How do you know whether he has trouble paying attention or not?
>>
>> How?
>>
>> >I do, I know it, and no matter who lies that I don't I do and almost
>> >certainly always will. What could change it?
>>
>> What?
>>
>> >>Goof-balls such as Proby and Wright
>> >>have been laughed out of this newsgroup years ago. So have other
>> >>useful idiots such as Palmer, Stan and Parsons.
>>
>> > What problems did they recognise in people that you don't want
>> >taken into consideration?
>>
>> What problems?
>
>Please, for your own good, try to relax.
Just answer which other problems you would also like to
deny the existence of.
>I am an expert on these subjects
Then try to be of some value as long as you're tapping
the keyboard.
>and I can assure you that you do NOT have ADD!
You can assure me that dogs can fly too, but that
doesn't mean anything. Try backing up the claim.
>You never have and you never will.
You don't have any way of knowing that.
>Those are the undisputed facts!
They are hollow claims. Try backing them up. GO:
>Now go live
>your life and rest assured that you do not have anything more than
>anybody else has!!
I pointed out to begin with that everyone has it to
varying degrees.
>That is GOOD NEWS!
So far it's a hollow claim that sounds extremely
unlikely, and therefore not "news" at all.
Mark Probert
You are wating your time. WholeFARTer is a long time troll in
newsgroups. Do not respond to s/h/it.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
My knowledge of these medical subjects is vastly superior to Proby's.
Ignore him. For proof ask either Jan, Linda or Ilena! They each
individually have the equivalent of a Ph.D. on related medical issues.
Mark Probert
Like you, they possess a BS (bull shit), MS (more shit) and a PhD
(piled higher and deeper).
Need I remind you of the time you were caught by the Washington Post
organization plagiarizing and altering one of their articles, or when
one of your ISPs kick your ass off line because you were playing
doctor, or the other ISP that dropped you like a bag of steaming feces
when your check bounced?
You mainipulate women who you think are ill, and you abused Tim Brown,
who acknowledged that he suffered from mental problems.
IOW, you are a low-life scumbag.
(Note, I did not mean to insult low-life scumbags).
dh
That wouldn't be proof. For all I know you're pretending to be
them like you're pretending other things. What I do know is that
you make unlikely sounding claims that you can't even attempt
to support.
>They each
>individually have the equivalent of a Ph.D. on related medical issues.
No matter how much education people have, they can't make
all of the problems associated with ADD cease to exist simply by
denying that they do. Even a grade school student should be able
to appreciate that fact.
dh
AFAIK the only thing these bullshitters are good for, is
for other people to expose their bullshit...or to challenge
them to back it up so they end up exposing it themselves.
Mark Probert
Or, ignoring them. They look like a junk yard dog, although I did not
mean to insult junk yard dogs, as they have a purpose in life.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Sir, even my most scathing detractor will admit my material is 100%
accurate, with the exception of one nut-case who is roundly dismissed
by nearly everyone. I will not give him any credence by stating his
name, but ask Ilena or Jan for his credentials, they are NOT good.
This mentally disturbed individual needs immediate psychiatric care,
and hopefully he will get it very very soon! Enough said about that!!
I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
been printed in the most prestigious medical journals. Ask me for
the website if you want!
These are support groups so let us work together in solving your
seemingly intractable problems. As a rule, certain medications only
mask the symptoms, if not amplify them. Right off the top I would
look at how much you are dosing yourself on a daily basis.
Let us proceed from there! Good luck and take care.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Proby, just because you can use the Hitlerian-Nixonian technique by
repeating a lie, I have to remind your little pea-brain once again
that it still does not make it the truth. Sorry Charlie, the facts
will out, and my material has been verified to be 100% accurate 100%
of the time. You, on the other hand, have been raked over the coals
by Ilena so many times, that I am surprised you keep rearing your ugly
diatribes. But there you have it, the turds always float to the top!!!
dh
You've shown that you want to expose at least some
of them yourself.
>They look like a junk yard dog,
Junk yard dogs do not all look the same.
>although I did not
>mean to insult junk yard dogs, as they have a purpose in life.
Bullshitters obviously have taken on the purpose of
bullshitting, while others of us have taken on the purpose
of exposing their bullshit.
dh
For one thing that's nearly impossible to believe, and it is
impossible for me. And for another thing one of my complaints
is that you've made incredibly unlikely seeming claims without
making the slightest attempt to back them up, both of which
cause me to disbelieve you.
>with the exception of one nut-case who is roundly dismissed
>by nearly everyone. I will not give him any credence by stating his
>name, but ask Ilena or Jan for his credentials, they are NOT good.
That's always fun, so let's have them Ilena and/or Jan, and
thanks.
>This mentally disturbed individual needs immediate psychiatric care,
>and hopefully he will get it very very soon!
Maybe he's already getting it.
>Enough said about that!!
>
>I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD
See now here again it doesn't work out from the other
person's position--which I'm in--because it doesn't seem
likely that you're an expert on something you deny.
>and my material has
>been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
Maybe.
>Ask me for the website if you want!
How about the website?
>These are support groups
If this is the best people have, I sure feel sorry for them.
>so let us work together in solving your
>seemingly intractable problems.
The best I can do is learn to do things in spite of it, and
one of the best things to do to help with that is to recognise
and then deliberately address the problem. Even an expert
should be able to understand that much.
>As a rule, certain medications only
>mask the symptoms, if not amplify them.
I can believe that, but since you deny ADD then you're
not in much of a position to say anything about its symptoms.
You really haven't thought this through....
>Right off the top I would
>look at how much you are dosing yourself on a daily basis.
If I were doing so I would always be thinking about dosage
of course, but I tried some ritalin sort of thing a friend was
taking and to me it was like drinking a cup of coffee. I avoid
caffein because it has too much influence on my system, and
since I don't like the feeling I don't fool with ritalin or whatever
either.
>Let us proceed from there!
That should be fun. How would you suggest I best
overcome this problem you say no one has ever had?
>Good luck and take care.
Thanks. You too.
dh
>I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
>been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
"Let me state that again: ADD does NOT exist, and never has."
- Wholeflaffers
It just doesn't add up....
>Ask me for the website if you want!
....did that. Probert nailed you apparently.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>
> >I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
> >been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
>
> "Let me state that again: ADD does NOT exist, and never has."
> - Wholeflaffers
>
> It just doesn't add up....
>
> >Ask me for the website if you want!
>
> ....did that. Probert nailed you apparently.
Proby has been totally discredited, even by his most adamant
supporters. The so-called "3-P Boyz" who were made up of Proby,
Palmer and "Porno" Parsons, have been laughed out of this newsgroup,
and for all the right reasons. Although they successfully knocked out
author-humanitarian Tim Brown and Nobal Prize winner Sara Freeman, a
few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
the benefit of all mankind!!
I am glad I have helped you and your kind and we will be here when we
are needed, which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome pushed by
medical interests. For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
Thank you and take care!
Mark Probert
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:55 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>
> > >I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
> > >been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
>
> > "Let me state that again: ADD does NOT exist, and never has."
> > - Wholeflaffers
>
> > It just doesn't add up....
>
> > >Ask me for the website if you want!
>
> > ....did that. Probert nailed you apparently.
>
> Proby has been totally discredited,
Not in the slightest. You discredited yourself by your antics.
even by his most adamant
> supporters. The so-called "3-P Boyz" who were made up of Proby,
> Palmer and "Porno" Parsons, have been laughed out of this newsgroup,
> and for all the right reasons.
If I was laughed out of this newsgroup, why am I still here?
Although they successfully knocked out
> author-humanitarian Tim Brown
No, asswipe, you did that by trying to manipulate Tim. Tim and I have
become friends, and I have read his book. You have not.
> and Nobal Prize winner Sara Freeman,
Sara was a prize, but not Nobel.
a
> few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
> the benefit of all mankind!!
Advocate for your own mental health, as you surely need some.
>
> I am glad I have helped you and your kind and we will be here when we
> are needed, which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
> and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome pushed by
> medical interests. For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
You love manipulating women.
dh
>On Apr 21, 5:55 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
>> >been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
>>
>> "Let me state that again: ADD does NOT exist, and never has."
>> - Wholeflaffers
>>
>> It just doesn't add up....
>>
>> >Ask me for the website if you want!
>>
>> ....did that. Probert nailed you apparently.
>
>Proby has been totally discredited,
Not in this particular case he sure has not. In this case it
appears clear that he knows what he's talking about.
>even by his most adamant
>supporters. The so-called "3-P Boyz" who were made up of Proby,
>Palmer and "Porno" Parsons, have been laughed out of this newsgroup,
I doubt that's possible. Then there's also the fact that Proby
quite obviously is not out of this newsgroup, which is more
evidence that you're being dishonest.
>and for all the right reasons. Although they successfully knocked out
>author-humanitarian Tim Brown and Nobal Prize winner Sara Freeman,
How did they knock them out, and why?
>a
>few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
>the benefit of all mankind!!
So far all you've done is claimed that no one has ever had
a problem with maintaining a good attention level, and then
claimed to be an expert on that particular problem, but without
being able to try backing up a bit of it.
>I am glad I have helped you and your kind
It's quite clear that you could not have ever helped anyone
with a problem maintaining their concentration. So the question
is: Are you truly screwed up enough yourself to honestly believe
that you could have?
>and we will be here when we are needed,
If you've encountered people who are unfortunately gullible
enough to believe your garbage then you may have had a
negative influence on them, causing them to fail in their eductation
or lose their job or something, but denying a problem they have isn't
going to help anyone so all you could have done is harm, not help.
>which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
>and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome
That's bullshit since everyone has it to some degree. Our
society is set up so that it's not a problem for people who have
it to an average degree, but it is a problem for people who have
it to a high degree. I've heard that retarded people have it to
a very low degree, and therefore can keep their attention on
things that would soon become very uninteresting and hard to
keep concentration on for people who have it to a higher degree.
There is another term for the problem and maybe you want to
try denying that too--of course without making any attempt to
back yourself up--and that term is: boredom.
>pushed by medical interests.
How people take advantage of problems you dishonestly
insist do not exist is another issue. I have no doubt there are
people taking advantage of problems you claim do not exist,
but in regards to you in particular all that does is reveal the
dishonesty of your absurd denials.
>For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
I CHALLENGE them to try backing you up and help you
try to make any of those sort of problems dissappear simply
by claiming they do not exist. Try it Ilena! Try it Jan! Try it
Linda! Try it Wholeflaffers!!!
dh
>On Apr 23, 10:12 am, "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
><scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 5:55 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >I am THE residential expert on the issue of ADD and my material has
>> > >been printed in the most prestigious medical journals.
>>
>> > "Let me state that again: ADD does NOT exist, and never has."
>> > - Wholeflaffers
>>
>> > It just doesn't add up....
>>
>> > >Ask me for the website if you want!
>>
>> > ....did that. Probert nailed you apparently.
>>
>> Proby has been totally discredited,
>
>Not in the slightest. You discredited yourself by your antics.
He has certainly done that in this case. First he denys
a problem exists, and then claims to be an expert on
something he denys. Being unable to attempt to back
his claims up makes him appear even worse. Do you
know of any examples where he has tried to actually
support his claim, or doesn't he ever make an attempt?
>>even by his most adamant
>> supporters. The so-called "3-P Boyz" who were made up of Proby,
>> Palmer and "Porno" Parsons, have been laughed out of this newsgroup,
>> and for all the right reasons.
>
>If I was laughed out of this newsgroup, why am I still here?
We must recognise this as yet another absurd seeming
and completely unsupported claim.
>> Although they successfully knocked out
>> author-humanitarian Tim Brown
>
>No, asswipe, you did that by trying to manipulate Tim. Tim and I have
>become friends, and I have read his book. You have not.
Maybe Wholeflaffers has ADD and can't maintain his
concentration long enough to read it.
>> and Nobal Prize winner Sara Freeman,
>
>Sara was a prize, but not Nobel.
Could she back her ass up?
>> a
>> few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
>> the benefit of all mankind!!
>
>Advocate for your own mental health, as you surely need some.
So far from my position that does appear to be the case. I wonder
what his doctor would say about him encouraging people to deny
their problems...hmmm...making me wonder if in similar but more severe
and intense situations doctors might sometimes encourage suicide...
In another ng I've been encouraged to kill myself so I could no longer
point out the huge differences between decent animal welfare and the
gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
>> I am glad I have helped you and your kind and we will be here when we
>> are needed, which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
>> and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome pushed by
>> medical interests. For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
>
>You love manipulating women.
They sure haven't come jumping in here to try to help him
support his denials yet, but it would probably be quite interesting
--and maybe even amusing--to see them try making the attempt.
Try girls, TRY!!!:
Buzzard
> (snip)
> few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
> the benefit of all mankind!!
>
> I am glad I have helped you and your kind and we will be here when we
> are needed, which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
> and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome pushed by
> medical interests. For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
One thing I can't deny is that compared to other people,
I have extreme dificulty concentrating on any specific
task.
And I know you do not consider that a syndrome.
What I don't know is just what DO you condsider it?
Are you saying that I ought to be able to do as others
do if i would only try even harder, or are you saying
that the rest of the world should just be more tolerant
towards such differences?
Jan Drew
<dh@.> wrote in message news:4pr0v45obr0hj76jo...@4ax.com...
This article is part of a series covering litigation involving the
pharmaceutical industry and is sponsored by the Pogust & Braslow, LLC law
firm.
Other Articles by Evelyn Pringle
* Suicide Risk of Neurontin Kept Hidden for Years
* Nobody Buys Lilly's Innocence Routine About Zyprexa
* Zyprexa Judge Sends Invite to New York Times Reporter
* The Bush Administration's FDA
* Public Has a Right to Know Secrets Revealed in Zyprexa Documents
* Lilly's Legal Battle Over Zyprexa Documents Continues
* Paxil Birth Defect Litigation -- Battle of the Decade
* Court Allows Eli Lilly To Bury Zyprexa Documents
* SSRI Experts Head to Washington to Testify Before FDA Panel
* Big Pharma Hits on Pregnant Women
* Dick Cheney Fitted for New Halliburton Uniform: A Striped Jumpsuit
* 2005 Profitable Year for Whistleblowers
* Glaxo Promotes Mental Disorders -- Then Paxil
* $2 Million Fine Small Potatoes For Kaiser Transplant Disaster
* How Bush Rigged the Ohio Election: The Noe Factor
* Autism: Worst Welfare Disaster in History
* Not So Fast, Colin Powell
* Fentanyl Deaths: Severe Math Problems At FDA
* Reviewing ADHD Drugs: FDA Goes Through the Motions
* Pfizer Makes List of Worst Corporate Evildoers
* Psych Drugs: Doctors Serve As Middleman Pushers
* Adderall Online: Black Market Profits In Plain Sight
* FDA Shields Drug Companies from Lawsuits
* SSRIs: Wonder Drugs From Hell
* Dan Olmsted: Autism's Dick Tracy
* Pharma's Poisoned Generation
* Pharma to Republicans: Time to Pay Up Again
* Bush Team Has Good Reason To Worry
* Bin Laden Sitting In a Cave Laughing
* Bush Doing Corporate Bidding While on the Clock
* Iraqis to Bush -- Where Did All Our Money Go?
* Top War Profiteer Doug Feith Retires Wealthy
* August 24 DC Protest -- What's Everybody Mad About?
* Parental Consent -- TeenScheme Sets The Record Wrong
* Autism + Vaccines = Tax Dollars
* Portrait of Laurie Flynn, TeenScreen's Top Pill Pusher
* Child Vaccines Did & Do Cause Autism
* Bush-Backed Drug Marketing Schemes
* TeenScreen: Angel of Mercy or Pill Pusher
* Bush Wants Pharma Trojan Horse Unleashed
* Get Mercury Out Of Vaccines -- NOW!
* Bush -- Labeling Kids Mentally Ill For Profit
* Profits: Sole Reason for Blocking Importation of Cheap Drugs
* Halliburton Contracts Illegal -- Bush & Cheney Say So What
* Bush Administration Knew Childhood Vaccines Cause Autism
* Bush Puppets Push for New Law to Protect Drug Companies
* Halliburton -- Poster Child For War Profiteering
* IRS To Amway -- The Party's Over
* Prince Neil Bush -- I am Not a Crook
* Prince Neil Bush Strikes Again
* Prince Neil Bush & Silverado
* The Truth About Importing Prescription Drugs
* Why Are We In Iraq?: Bush Family $$$ Signs
* The Bush Crony Full-Employment Act of 2003
Jan Drew
<dh@.> wrote in message news:4pr0v45obr0hj76jo...@4ax.com...
The nurturing of America's elite
Pill-popping and misbehaviour are results of neglect
When you hear the word "elite," you probably think "the cream of the crop."
But the elite are nothing without the next generation to take their place.
This is what I've come to understand after this past summer working at a
residential camp in the United States.
My experiences left me in awe of how teenagers (between the ages of 14
to 17) of the richest families in America are treated at home. They were
more than willing to share their experiences with us, their counsellors, in
the hopes that we would understand.
The misconception people often have, which I had as well, is that rich
kids are uptight, demanding brats who feel they are better than other
people. This kind of thinking could not be further from the truth. For the
most part, they were fun-loving, regular teens that you would come across,
regardless of social status.
But I did witness one thing that distinguished these teens from others
their age. More than a quarter of them were on heavy prescription
medications that their parents were forcing them to take. Everyday in the
cafeteria, I watched as the teens went, one-by-one, to the nurse's table and
took everything from anti-depressants to attention deficit and hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) pills to drugs with complex names too difficult to even
pronounce. Late at night, goosebumps rose on my neck when I escorted some of
the teens to the nurse so they could take their daily hormone injections.
There was one boy who didn't want to participate in the off-campus
evening activity, so he stood in the parking lot in protest and would not
budge. The director tried to reason with him while having to listen to him
repeatedly yell obscenities. He went eventually, but rather than
participate, he poured his heart out to me. He described the lack of love
and attention that he received from his parents along with their intense
effort to control him, all of which had caused him to disrespect authority
figures (among other social behaviours.)
According to a 2003 report co-published by Human Resources Development
Canada and Health Canada entitled "The Well-Being of Canada's Young
Children," a family's ability to function properly is tied to the quality of
the relationship between parents and their children. This relationship is a
critical ingredient in shaping early child development and setting
developmental pathways into adulthood. For whatever reason, the parents of
these elite teens did not seem to recognize that their lack of involvement
was a significant factor in shaping their children's lives.
On registration day, the parents usually come to see the camp, check out
the room and kiss the child goodbye. In the parking lot, I watched a van
pull up to the curb, a middle-aged man (presumably the father) take out the
luggage and a small child exit through the passenger door and pick up his
bags. But before I could greet them both, the van seemed to create the
necessary 1.21 gigawatts of power to reach 88 mph in order to speed away
from the camp.
Data from the 2003 report showed that children living in post-divorce
custodial arrangements have a higher prevalence of behavioural or emotional
problems than children living in non-divorced families. This is especially
true when divorce and remarriage becomes repetitive.
At this camp, there was an evening trip to the local Barnes & Noble
bookstore one night. One of the campers came over to me and we started
chatting about books and life, and I asked if she was close with her family.
She laughed good-heartedly, but her laugh was only a good cover for
everything that was supposed to be okay. Both her parents were remarried and
her step-parents either wanted to have a definitive say in her life or none
at all. Consequently, her preference of one over the other was constantly
shifting. Her story left me with the desire to send all similar parents to
Dr. Marvin Monroe's Family Therapy Centre. But I will settle on allowing
this article to act as a cautionary tale for all those who are graduating.
Don't sacrifice family time for long hours at work to get that
promotion. Let family become a priority and, above all, don't forget to
show your love.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3326315/Should-children-get-mood-altering-pills.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifeandstyle/health/articles/8211049?source=Metro#
For starters.
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" wrote:
>asswipe.
Forgot to read Torah again today.
Which makes him a liar.
He pushes drugs and gave his own kid/.kids ADHD meds.
With no studies of long term effects.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Sad but true. Thank you for you diligence on these newsgroups in
exposing the frauds, shills and drug pushers. Occasionally these
idiots rear their ugly heads, but the users of these groups should
take note that Jan and the other totally honest researchers will be
here to post facts, documents and verifiable scientific medical
data! Nuisances like Proby and his cult are easy enough to point
out, so we do it for the uninitiated and newbies.
Thank you again Jan, you have single-handily saved these newsgroups!!!
Mark Probert
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
Occasionally these
> idiots rear their ugly heads,
You rear your rear, which is the only functioning part of you,
asswipe.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Your cult is been totally discredited, and now "WE" - the honest and
caring researchers - have taken total control of these support
newsgroups. Your kind of filth and nonsense is no longer needed or
appreciated.
Leave these groups to the experts such as myself, Jan, Ilena and
Linda.
dh
[snip]
I looked through it, and read parts of it, but never did
get to the part(s) that backs up Wholeflafer's claim or
even addresses it. How about if instead of burrying
whatever you have in mind in a bunch of material that
doesn't help you, just post what it is you think does?
So far you can guess what my guess is, probably, but
it might be more fun if you try showing I'm wrong...
dh
With all your boasting you still haven't done anything but
make a couple of absurd sounding claims without even making
an attempt to back them up. Doesn't that part mean anything
to you? Do you think other people haven't noticed that part,
even though I've been consistently pointing out that I have?
dh
>On Apr 23, 5:55�pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" �wrote:
>> >asswipe.
>>
>> Forgot to read Torah again today.
>>
>> Which makes him a liar.
>> He pushes drugs and gave his own kid/.kids ADHD meds.
>> With no studies of long term effects.
>
>Sad but true. Thank you for you diligence on these newsgroups in
>exposing the frauds, shills and drug pushers. Occasionally these
>idiots rear their ugly heads, but the users of these groups should
>take note that Jan and the other totally honest researchers will be
>here to post facts, documents and verifiable scientific medical
>data!
Yet even though I've specifically asked you to attempt to
provide something to support your horribly dishonest and
absurd seeming claim that no one has ever had ADD, neither
you nor your supposed groupies have been able to provide
evidence that it's anything but horribly dishonest and absurd.
Are you a supporter of the horribly dishonest misnomer
"animal rights" too, btw?
>Nuisances like Proby and his cult are easy enough to point
>out,
He's more point blank asshole than you but he also appears
to be more honest...I say that because so far I don't believe
I've seen you be honest about anything yet.
>so we do it for the uninitiated and newbies.
I'm a newby, and so far it looks like Proby feels that medication
is good sometimes, and you look like a super extremist who says
medication is always bad for mental problems.
>Thank you again Jan, you have single-handily saved these newsgroups!!!
It's not saved yet if saving means attempting to back up your
horrific claim, since neither of you have done it. At least she took
a lame swipe at it, but you haven't done a damn thing. Doesn't
that part count to you?
Changing the topic: What do you think about the strong
atheists' horribly dishonest and absurd claim that they don't
have faith in what it's necessary to have faith in in order to
be a strong atheist? Being comfortable with such blatant
dishonesties yourself, do you see nothing wrong with it?
My guess is that Proby might see something wrong with it,
but that you don't think there's anything wrong with dishonesty
as long as there are enough people supporting it that it looks
like they're kind of getting away with it. Right?
dh
>Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
>> (snip)
>> few of us strong advocates for proper mental health have stayed for
>> the benefit of all mankind!!
>>
>> I am glad I have helped you and your kind and we will be here when we
>> are needed, which is pretty often these days!! The truth cannot be
>> and shall not be disputed, ADD simply is a phony spin-drome pushed by
>> medical interests. For proof ask Ilena, Jan or Linda.
>
>One thing I can't deny is that compared to other people,
>I have extreme dificulty concentrating on any specific
>task.
I do to...at least on *maintaining* concentration. I can concentrate
for a period of time, but not as long as other people. And it gets worse
as time goes on, for example at the beggining of a school term I could
pay attention and do well for a week or two, and then it got harder and
harder. At the time I didn't understand what was going on, but only
that I was bad for not keeping my attention, and then for getting poor
grades, etc. It wasn't until years later that I found out, but knowing it
does help me in a number of ways just knowing to watch out for it and
fight against it. On the plus side a lot of times when I do concentrate
on things I think about them in more detail and notice significant aspects
of situations that a lot of other people don't, and sometimes that they
can't even appreciate the significance of.
>And I know you do not consider that a syndrome.
>What I don't know is just what DO you condsider it?
Good luck getting something like that out of that guy.
>Are you saying that I ought to be able to do as others
>do if i would only try even harder,
How could he do that, when it would require acknowledgeing
a problem he has already claimed does not exist, and that no
one has ever had?
>or are you saying
>that the rest of the world should just be more tolerant
>towards such differences?
He claimed that no one has ADD, and no one ever has
had it. In contrast to that dishonesty everyone has it to some
extent, but the way society is set up is to conform to the
norm. You can bet there has been a considerable amount
of study into human attention spans, and educators and
entertainment people have to take such things into
consideration in some detail. I feel quite certain that when
they do research and experimantation on that subject, they
usually end up taking the ADD factor into consideration at
some point(s) along the way.
Buzzard
> Buzzard scribbled:
> (snip what Captain Hassenpfeffer wrote)
>> One thing I can't deny is that compared to other people,
>> I have extreme dificulty concentrating on any specific
>> task.
>
> I do to...at least on *maintaining* concentration. I can concentrate
> for a period of time, but not as long as other people. And it gets worse
> as time goes on, for example at the beggining of a school term I could
> pay attention and do well for a week or two, and then it got harder and
> harder. At the time I didn't understand what was going on, but only
> that I was bad for not keeping my attention, and then for getting poor
> grades, etc. It wasn't until years later that I found out, but knowing it
> does help me in a number of ways just knowing to watch out for it and
> fight against it. On the plus side a lot of times when I do concentrate
> on things I think about them in more detail and notice significant aspects
> of situations that a lot of other people don't, and sometimes that they
> can't even appreciate the significance of.
Sometimes I can do that; I've heard it called "hyperfocus".
It enables me to do things at work that others can't, but
unfortunately, no one understands that I can't always do that.
And this being the
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Your tone is very disturbing, I wonder what is your true agenda. For
the record, I have posted over the past decade plus scientific
research that backs up all my claims with undisputable and undeniable
facts. Go review that for your answers.
dh
To point out significant things people don't want to
think about for one thing, like the necessary faith of
strong atheists and the dishonesty behind the gross
misnomer "animal rights". So I saw you spewing what
clearly appears to be bullshit about ADD and decided
to see if I could find out how wrong the idea is.
>For
>the record, I have posted over the past decade plus scientific
>research that backs up all my claims
You have backed up nothing even when requested
and challenged to do so. You suggested that a couple
of girls might do it for you, but they haven't posted anything
to back you up either. It's YOUR fault, not mine. All I'm
doing is pointing it out, because pointing out bullshit is
something that's fun to do.
>with undisputable and undeniable
>facts. Go review that for your answers.
There's nothing there, which is something I've been
pointing out from the start of our discussion about it.
That's probably a shame too, because it would probably
be somewhat amusing to see you try to cure every case
of ADD that has ever been, simply by denying the existence
of it. But what if you really did do it...think what a hero you
would be then! So, TRY IT:
dh
Yes, but sometimes you'll quickly notice things they haven't
noticed in a much longer time thinking about it, if you're like
I am. Not always as you say, but sometimes. And sometimes
that makes it worse not better when you're the one pointing
out potential problems and reasons why something won't work...
>And this being the
dh
Probert was right. You're full of bullshit claims with nothing
to back them up. LOL..."review", even though there's nothing
to review...LOL.... Maybe you just forgot that you never tried
to back them up to begin with?
What do you think about strong atheists denying their own
faith, btw?
Raving
> What do you think about strong atheists denying their own
> faith, btw?
That is similar to Buzzard's appreciation ...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/2f21d2766fd4d5f4
Always wondered about insistent agnostics.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Nobody in their right mind, or even their wrong minds, have taken what
Proby or the 3-P Boyz have to say in many a year. The difference is
my posts have stood the test of time and have been proven 100%
correct. But I have documented everything I have ever written up with
peer-reviewed medical journals. That really makes the cult very mad,
but too bad, truth will out!!! Now please, join our Crusade and help
get the truth out about real mental-health issues.
Buzzard
I don't quite get the connection between
"Dr. Fester Bester Tester" and agnosticism...
(or was that the wrong message ID number?)
Buzzard
>(snip)
> correct. But I have documented everything I have ever written up with
> peer-reviewed medical journals.
I must have missed a post or several.
Can you post URL's to these journals?
Raving
> Raving wrote:
> > On May 6, 8:49 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> What do you think about strong atheists denying their own
> >>faith, btw?
>
> > That is similar to Buzzard's appreciation ...
>
>
> > Always wondered about insistent agnostics.
>
> I don't quite get the connection between
> "Dr. Fester Bester Tester" and agnosticism...
> (or was that the wrong message ID number?)
1) Your FBT example:
Cause "A" ---> Effect "B"
Effect "A" <--- Cause "B"
2) My agnostic example:
agnostics --=> *AGNOSTICS*
(I.E. .. Start with small, gentle 'agnostic' and then goose it with
*EMPHASIS*)
3) d...'s "strong atheists denying their own faith":
Atheist ---> !Atheist
----------------------------------------
1), 2) and 3) above are similar
How so? <puzzlement>
They are similar in a few respects ... and even though the similarity
is simple&plain, it is very difficult to perceive and describe. The
reason that it is so hard is because the observation/assertion is
very, very fast ...
.... and now I shall *contradict* myself and claim thus: The only
reason that Buzzard, d... and Raving are capable of noticing,
appreciating, valuing the worth of such thing is because ...
... they s l o w the perception down
slightly.
(Sorry for using 3rd person tense)
For most people the "description" passes too quickly and without
distortion. They miss that a "description" can be approached ... can
be inspected ... from more than one direction.
For most people the "description" passes too quickly and without
distortion. They miss that a "description" can be engaged and
*emphasized* many different ways.
The problem is that the moment, the moment of experiencing ... passes
so quickly. Without that impulsive, wobble, slop, acceleration,
deceleration, swivel, spin , skew to the reality, that those with AD(H)
D have ... such fine structure detail just isn't apparent.
And so on and so forth. ... mumble, mumble.. ( as Raving careens
through background contextual appreciation)
There is a goldmine in the tautology. The spin is unavoidable, ...
even unavoidable by those who do not have AD(H)D. Those without AD(H)D
seem less aware of perception's inbuilt distortions.
As I have become fond of saying ...
"Everyone is a raving looney. Some raving loonies are more self-aware
of their raving loonieness than others." It is enough to make a
person depressingly sane.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Thank you for stating the FACTS!! WE have always posted peer-reviewed
fact based science, and we will continue to do so. Let the others
make up their facts, we can prove ours!!
Buzzard
> Buzzard wrote:
>(snip)
>>I don't quite get the connection between
>>"Dr. Fester Bester Tester" and agnosticism...
>>(or was that the wrong message ID number?)
>
> 1) Your FBT example:
> Cause "A" ---> Effect "B"
> Effect "A" <--- Cause "B"
>
> 2) My agnostic example:
> agnostics --=> *AGNOSTICS*
> (I.E. .. Start with small, gentle 'agnostic' and then goose it with
> *EMPHASIS*)
>
> 3) d...'s "strong atheists denying their own faith":
> Atheist ---> !Atheist
>
> ----------------------------------------
> 1), 2) and 3) above are similar
>
> How so? <puzzlement>
>
> They are similar in a few respects ... and even though the similarity
> is simple&plain, it is very difficult to perceive and describe. The
> reason that it is so hard is because the observation/assertion is
> very, very fast ...
>
> .... and now I shall *contradict* myself and claim thus: The only
> reason that Buzzard, d... and Raving are capable of noticing,
> appreciating, valuing the worth of such thing is because ...
>
> ... they s l o w the perception down
> slightly.
>
> distortion. They miss that a "description" can be approached ... can
> be inspected ... from more than one direction.
I have noticed a trend among most towards
... absoluteness .. in any issue they speak on.
> For most people the "description" passes too quickly and without
> distortion. They miss that a "description" can be engaged and
> *emphasized* many different ways.
>
> The problem is that the moment, the moment of experiencing ... passes
> so quickly. Without that impulsive, wobble, slop, acceleration,
> deceleration, swivel, spin , skew to the reality, that those with AD(H)
> D have ... such fine structure detail just isn't apparent.
? perhaps NTs have relegated the "description" process to
the automatic, subconcious level, where to them it is
beneath notice and therefore above scrutiny.
That would certainly speed up their identification of things.
Is that what so-called "common sense" is .?.. The transferrance
of such things out of the changeable concious mind, and into
the immutable hardwired black-box wherein "could be seen as"
forever becomes "is" ?
I wonder if perhaps that was what whats-his-name meant when
he said at his impeachment hearing "That depends on what your
definition of the word 'is' is.." ?
> There is a goldmine in the tautology. The spin is unavoidable, ...
> even unavoidable by those who do not have AD(H)D. Those without AD(H)D
> seem less aware of perception's inbuilt distortions.
>
> As I have become fond of saying ...
> "Everyone is a raving looney. Some raving loonies are more self-aware
> of their raving loonieness than others." It is enough to make a
> person depressingly sane.
True (i think).
--
what?
Raving
> Raving wrote:
> > Buzzard wrote:
> >(snip)
>
>
> ... absoluteness .. in any issue they speak on.
:)
I come across as being very opinionated and rushing to conclusion in a
cruder-than-black-and-white manner.
The reason that I might seem to be this way is that I have an eye for
picking out the 'singular characterization'.
Example of 'Singular Characterization':
---> Each person has a song. They say the the same thing over and over
again. It is their point of view.
> ? perhaps NTs have relegated the "description" process to
> the automatic, subconcious level, where to them it is
> beneath notice and therefore above scrutiny.
> That would certainly speed up their identification of things.
It only seems to be autistics who have a fondness for the term 'Neuro
Typical'. There are autistics and then there are NTs.
NTs are non-autistics.
There is a very specific quality to autistic style thinking. I don't
know if you have picked up on it yet. ... It is hard for me to
explain that autistic style. I have repeatedly searched for a clear,
succinct way of describing it. (Takes much effort to attempt to
describe it. ... maybe I will try again later.)
>
> Is that what so-called "common sense" is .?.. The transferrance
> of such things out of the changeable concious mind, and into
> the immutable hardwired black-box wherein "could be seen as"
> forever becomes "is" ?
You have hit upon a huge, poorly understood, essential topic in what
you have written above.
I have never taken a course in psychology. I have never read a
textbook in psychology. My 'expertize' if I could call it that is in
theoretical/evolutionary biology.
Question: Why am I so preoccupied in what appears to be psychology?
Answer: Biological process = Information process
'Information' = [localization + coupling] of awareness/interaction
A theory of information in the biological context has yet to be
developed. That is my PhD thesis.
.
>
> > As I have become fond of saying ...
> > "Everyone is a raving looney. Some raving loonies are more self-aware
> > of their raving loonieness than others." It is enough to make a
> > person depressingly sane.
>
> True (i think).
Exactly.
... with the *emphasis* on the double take circumspection of -->
" ... (i think)"
> --
> what?
Buzzard
> Each person has a song. They say the the same thing over and over
> again. It is their point of view.
points have no size;. what about a line of view,
a plane of view, or even a volume of view?.
(I'm just babbling at the moment my brain's run off somewhere)
POVs aren't easy to change, i think because over time one gets
into a pov that is defensible, like fortressed, against attacks
from opposing views... kind of crystallizes the range of
positions one can take without getting pounded, away from a
purely analog spread, into a set of, well, points.
Any issue there could be a whole web of POVs, yet usually
everyone seems to get yanked to one extreme or the other
by those already there. ... ?
what the hell was it i was going to say?
> There is a very specific quality to autistic style thinking. I don't
> know if you have picked up on it yet. ... It is hard for me to
> explain that autistic style. I have repeatedly searched for a clear,
> succinct way of describing it. (Takes much effort to attempt to
> describe it. ... maybe I will try again later.)
Not that i can tell, no i don't think ive quite picked up
on it yet, but yeah try and put the descriptio to words, and
>>Is that what so-called "common sense" is .?.. The transferrance
>>of such things out of the changeable concious mind, and into
>>the immutable hardwired black-box wherein "could be seen as"
>>forever becomes "is" ?
>
> You have hit upon a huge, poorly understood, essential topic in what
> you have written above.
i hoped ther was something to that, because ive
been accused (back in, what was it, 9th grade) of not having any
> I have never taken a course in psychology. I have never read a
> textbook in psychology. My 'expertize' if I could call it that is in
> theoretical/evolutionary biology.
> Question: Why am I so preoccupied in what appears to be psychology?
> Answer: Biological process = Information process
> 'Information' = [localization + coupling] of awareness/interaction
> A theory of information in the biological context has yet to be
> developed. That is my PhD thesis.
Shoom, that was kind of over my head. do you mean like how
the stuff you know gets stored in your brain?
--
buzzard
(no im not plastered, i just get this way someitmes)
dh
>My 'expertize' if I could call it that is in
>theoretical/evolutionary biology.
How exactly does one species give rise to a different one?
Are there often mutant beings born who have different DNA
structures (or whatever) from the rest of their species and usually
they don't survive much less successfully reproduce an entire
new species, but once in a while they do? If not that, then how
is it supposed to work?
dh
Strong atheists often amusingly try to deny the very faith which
is REQUIRED in order for them to be a strong atheist. Obviously
that's incredibly stupid, but what else?
>The difference is
>my posts have stood the test of time and have been proven 100%
>correct.
Nope.
>But I have documented everything I have ever written up with
>peer-reviewed medical journals.
Nope.
>That really makes the cult very mad,
LOL. I imagine they are more amused than pissed off.
>but too bad, truth will out!!! Now please, join our Crusade and help
>get the truth out about real mental-health issues.
Okay. I have ADD. Remember?
dh
Nope.
dh
>On Apr 23, 5:55�pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" �wrote:
>> >asswipe.
>>
>> Forgot to read Torah again today.
>>
>> Which makes him a liar.
>> He pushes drugs and gave his own kid/.kids ADHD meds.
>> With no studies of long term effects.
>
>Thank you for stating the FACTS!! WE have always posted peer-reviewed
>fact based science,
I've never seen you do it. Try doing it now. Go:
>and we will continue to do so.
LOL. You haven't even made an attempt yet, but I challenge
you to make it now. GO:
>Let the others
>make up their facts, we can prove ours!!
I challenge you to try backing up your absurd claim that no
one has ever hadd ADD. I challenge you to try doing it now.
GO!!!:
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 6, 5:49 am, dh@. wrote:
snip
> Okay. I have ADD. Remember?
Q: How many kids with ADD does it take to replace a light bulb?
A: LET'S RIDE BIKES!!!
-PF, Atl.
etc.
Raving
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 14:33:41 -0700 (PDT), Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >My 'expertize' if I could call it that is in
> >theoretical/evolutionary biology.
>
> How exactly does one species give rise to a different one?
> Are there often mutant beings born who have different DNA
> structures (or whatever) from the rest of their species and usually
> they don't survive much less successfully reproduce an entire
> new species, but once in a while they do? If not that, then how
> is it supposed to work?
Darwin's theory of natural election is very appealing because it takes
a single, short, simple, descriptive explanation and applies it to
every species, every individual, every representation of 'life'.
In other words, Darwin's theory of natural election is very efficient
& condensed description that universally, touches and pertains to all
examples.
And thus Darwin's theory is pure physics. ... It is a physical
artifact of biology process.
Is there an alternate 'hypothesis' that describes and predicts what we
see around us? There is "intelligent design" and perhaps other such
concepts (?) ... I leave those aside.
Hypothetical Question:
What if a 'hypothesis' that were to appropriately and effectively
explain and predict the diversity of life existed. Let's call it
Theory "H".
Assumption: Theory "H" explains evolution, etc ...
What is Theory "H"? Describe it ...
There is the problem ....
What if Theory "H" is fundamentally *indescribable* ?
Are there 'things' that are real and substantive, that exist but
cannot be described ?
I believe that the answer is 'yes'.
... Trying to describe it is utter, insufferable, futile, hell.
(But I have made much progress in doing exactly that. Stay tuned ...
mumble, mumble <speechless> <cat's got my tongue> )
Raving
> Raving wrote:
> > On May 9, 1:53 am, Buzzard <buzz...@domain.invalid.net> wrote:
> >> (snip)
> > Each person has a song. They say the the same thing over and over
> > again. It is their point of view.
>
> points have no size;. what about a line of view,
> a plane of view, or even a volume of view?.
> (I'm just babbling at the moment my brain's run off somewhere)
What you write is very much similar as to how I might go about it.
>
> POVs aren't easy to change, i think because over time one gets
> into a pov that is defensible, like fortressed, against attacks
> from opposing views... kind of crystallizes the range of
> positions one can take without getting pounded, away from a
> purely analog spread, into a set of, well, points.
> Any issue there could be a whole web of POVs, yet usually
> everyone seems to get yanked to one extreme or the other
> by those already there. ... ?
> what the hell was it i was going to say?
You said it very well.
You go lost because you changed scale and hyper-focused. Your eye was
close in, glued to tracking a "bouncing ball". You were not able to
see the embedded suroundings. They were 'over the horizon' beyond the
range of you immediate sight ( whilst close in and hyper focused.)
Smiler
> On May 12, 7:04 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
>> Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 6, 5:49 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> Okay. I have ADD. Remember?
>
What was that you just said?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Buzzard
> (snip)
> You go lost because you changed scale and hyper-focused. Your eye was
> close in, glued to tracking a "bouncing ball". You were not able to
> see the embedded suroundings. They were 'over the horizon' beyond the
> range of you immediate sight ( whilst close in and hyper focused.)
weird. like,
the crazy zoom-lens can zoom so far out that the
big picture is all there is, no detail at all, or
so close in that there exists nothing beyond the minutia.
What if i were to practice zooming it at will?
I wonder if i can do that?
Yap
dh
I suggested one way. How else could it work?
>(But I have made much progress in doing exactly that. Stay tuned ...
>mumble, mumble <speechless> <cat's got my tongue> )
Hmm. That's not what I expected. Since there are so
many people convinced it could have all happened by
chance with no help from God or anything, I figured
there must be some exact explanations as to how it could
have come about on its own.
Can you think of any examples where one species has
given birth to another? Have humans done it through
breeding, or is it something they keep trying to do, or
what?
dh
>panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 12, 7:04 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
>>> Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 6, 5:49 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Okay. I have ADD. Remember?
>>
><PIGGYBACKING>
>
>What was that you just said?
Huh? About what?
dh
>On May 12, 7:04�pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT), "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 6, 5:49�am, dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> � � What do you think about strong atheists denying their own
>> >> faith, btw?
>>
>> >Nobody in their right mind, or even their wrong minds, have taken what
>> >Proby or the 3-P Boyz have to say in many a year. �
>>
>> � � Strong atheists often amusingly try to deny the very faith which
>> is REQUIRED in order for them to be a strong atheist. Obviously
>> that's incredibly stupid, but what else?
>>
>> >The difference is
>> >my posts have stood the test of time and have been proven 100%
>> >correct. �
>>
>> � � Nope.
>>
>> >But I have documented everything I have ever written up with
>> >peer-reviewed medical journals. �
>>
>> � � Nope.
>>
>> >That really makes the cult very mad,
>>
>> � � LOL. I imagine they are more amused than pissed off.
>>
>> >but too bad, truth will out!!! �Now please, join our Crusade and help
>> >get the truth out about real mental-health issues.
>>
>> � � Okay. I have ADD. Remember?
>Oh, you have AIDS(not ADD), no cure.
I don't have that yet, but according to my parents it seems I've
had ADD since birth. They said even as an infant I got impatient
and frustrated quickly, but in part you may be right because there
doesn't appear to be a cure for that either. Being aware of it helps
though because then you have a better idea what you're fighting
against.
Mark
My ADD causes me to become impatient and frustrated quickly as well, just
like yours causes you to become impatient and frustrated quickly. And when
I'm proved wrong about something I've always believed in, instead of
taking that proof on board and correcting my thinking I tend to dig my
heels in deeper because I'm too impatient and frustrated to make those
corrections. Do you ever do that?
dh
I deliberately try to avoid it and at the first indication that I'm wrong I
try to correct my thinking to avoid such problems. That doesn't include
people in discussion groups who say I'm wrong without being able to
back it up though. For example in other ngs I point out that taking
the animals' lives into consideration is a necessary part of evaluating
whether or not it's cruel *to them* for humans to raise them for food.
That's an obvious fact, but some people try to persuade me to believe
the fact is in some mysterious and unexplainable way a form of sophism.
The only thing they have to attempt to "support" the absurd sounding
claim is a speach by an imaginary talking pig that was written by one of
the founding fathers of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:pfmo05d00hufsp2p8...@4ax.com...
No you don't, you do exactly what he described. You have ADD.
That doesn't include
> people in discussion groups who say I'm wrong without being able to
> back it up though.
You're wrong, and it has been backed up countless times.
> For example in other ngs I point out that taking
> the animals' lives into consideration is a necessary part of evaluating
> whether or not it's cruel *to them* for humans to raise them for food.
"taking their lives into consideration" is meaningless twaddle, utter
nonsense, and completely illegitimate
> That's an obvious fact,
It's obviously meaningless.
> but some people try to persuade me to believe
> the fact is in some mysterious and unexplainable way a form of sophism.
A concept beyond your grasp, which is why you fall into it so readily..
> The only thing they have to attempt to "support" the absurd sounding
> claim is a speach by an imaginary talking pig that was written by one of
> the founding fathers of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
The Salt essay is but one of hundreds of refutations of the Logic of the
Larder.
dh
When I first started pointing out the significance of the animals'
lives in these ngs I--very amusingly--thought that the people here
had probably already figured that out and were discussing it in
great detail as to how things could be done to encourage more
interest in the animals' lives. LOL... I was certainly wrong about
that! I did consider the possibility that it was a bad thing to do,
and was afraid that someone might explain why. Of course I didn't
want that, but if for some unimaginable reason there was something
wrong with it I wanted to find out. AND! In case you haven't noticed
I have ASKED you to give me some good reason(s) for the supposed
ethical superiority of your anticonsideration HUNDREDS OF TIMES,
and challenged all of you misnomer huggers to try explaining it
hundreds of times, and in nine years or whatever of asking not one
of you have every given even a half way decent reason. The "best"
you have ever been able to come up with is to tell the absurd and
blatant lie that having consideration for livestock when thinking
about livestock is somehow a form of sophism, and the only reason you
put your faith in that insane idea is because an imaginary talking pig
dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer told you so.
>you do exactly what he described. You have ADD.
Apparently you have NA, since you can't even consider the very
animals you're pretending to try to discuss.
>> That doesn't include
>> people in discussion groups who say I'm wrong without being able to
>> back it up though.
>
>You're wrong, and it has been backed up countless times.
You and the imaginary talking pig are wrong, not me.
>> For example in other ngs I point out that taking
>> the animals' lives into consideration is a necessary part of evaluating
>> whether or not it's cruel *to them* for humans to raise them for food.
>
>"taking their lives into consideration" is meaningless twaddle, utter
>nonsense, and completely illegitimate
It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel *to
them* for humans to raise them for food.
>> That's an obvious fact,
>
>It's obviously meaningless.
It's meaningless to those of you who want to see livestock
eliminated because decent animal welfare works against your objective.
I may have pointed that one out a thousand times. Do you think it's
been a thousand yet?
>> but some people try to persuade me to believe
>> the fact is in some mysterious and unexplainable way a form of sophism.
>
>A concept beyond your grasp,
Only because it's not. Actually pretending to support rights for
groups of animals you want to see eliminated is more a form of sophism
than encouraging people to consider the lives of groups of animals you
want to see continue and be of positive value to the animals.
>which is why you fall into it so readily..
>
>> The only thing they have to attempt to "support" the absurd sounding
>> claim is a speach by an imaginary talking pig that was written by one of
>> the founding fathers of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
>
>The Salt essay is but one of hundreds of refutations of the Logic of the
>Larder.
It's not a refutation at all, and it's the only attempt we are
aware of.
Mark
9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
Dutch
> 9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
There have been two or three, out of hundreds. That does not deter fuckwit
in the least, like all delusionals he sees his fatally flawed arguments as
obvious truths, and anyone who disagrees with him is part of a giant
conspiracy to eliminate livestock.
dh
Yes, several have and they have usually recognised it as
an obviously significant aspect of the situation, though one
woman did say she had never thought about it specifically
before. There was a consistent poster known as Goo (short for
Goobernicus) who was Dutch's hero (if not Dutch himself
posting under a different name, but that's another story...) who
tried to defend the misnomer by simply lying about what I was
saying. Because of a couple of mistakes I made in terminology
when I started 8-9 years ago Goo would lie and insist that
encouraging consideration of existing animals' lives somehow
meant that nonexistent "entities" were being treated unfairly,
suffering a loss, etc. I acknowledged my mistakes and explained
the truth countless times, but these people only care about the
elimination of domestic animals and they will tell any sort of lie
and try various other dishonest tricks in order to prevent people
in general from recognising the fact that many animals raised
for food have decent lives of positive value. Learning to
appreciate that works in favor of decent animal welfare, and
against the gross misnomer with the objective to eliminate them.
>The "best"
>>you have ever been able to come up with is to tell the absurd and
>>blatant lie that having consideration for livestock when thinking
>>about livestock is somehow a form of sophism, and the only reason you
>>put your faith in that insane idea is because an imaginary talking pig
>>dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer told you so.
. . .
dh
>"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
>> 9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>
>There have been two or three, out of hundreds.
The only people who have tried to oppose me have been
misnomer advocates. The misnomer opponents who have
said they disagree have not even tried to oppose what I've
been pointing out except for one guy who presented a bunch
of misnomer arguments, and then got pissy because I pointed
that fact out and said I disagree with them.
>That does not deter fuckwit
>in the least, like all delusionals he sees his fatally flawed arguments as
>obvious truths, and anyone who disagrees with him is part of a giant
>conspiracy to eliminate livestock.
It's obviously necessary to consider the animals, in order to
consider the animals. I know that to be true, and don't believe
you are too stupid to understand the fact either. If you really
are that stupid, then you're just incredibly stupid. But if you're
not really that stupid then you are being dishonest for some
reason, the most likely being that you're in favor of the misnomer.
Either way, you have never explained how you want people to
think anticonsideration is ethically superior to having consideration.
Hey, now that we mention it, NOW would be an excellent time for
you to try explaining what you want people to think is superior
about it. GO:
dh
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:59:09 -0700 (PDT), Raving <raving...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 12, 7:03�am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 May 2009 14:33:41 -0700 (PDT), Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >My 'expertize' if I could call it that is in
>>> >theoretical/evolutionary biology.
>>>
>>> � � How exactly does one species give rise to a different one?
>>> Are there often mutant beings born who have different DNA
>>> structures (or whatever) from the rest of their species and usually
>>> they don't survive much less successfully reproduce an entire
>>> new species, but once in a while they do? If not that, then how
>>> is it supposed to work?
. . .
>>Are there 'things' that are real and substantive, that exist but
>>cannot be described ?
>>
>>I believe that the answer is 'yes'.
>>
>> ... Trying to describe it is utter, insufferable, futile, hell.
>
> I suggested one way. How else could it work?
>
>>(But I have made much progress in doing exactly that. Stay tuned ...
>>mumble, mumble <speechless> <cat's got my tongue> )
>
> Hmm. That's not what I expected. Since there are so
>many people convinced it could have all happened by
>chance with no help from God or anything, I figured
>there must be some exact explanations as to how it could
>have come about on its own.
>
> Can you think of any examples where one species has
>given birth to another? Have humans done it through
>breeding, or is it something they keep trying to do, or
>what?
Well? Come on, you're the biology guy. If there are
no known examples, that's pretty significant. If there
are some that would be significant too, so which is it?
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>
>>>> I deliberately try to avoid it and at the first indication that I'm
>>>> wrong I
>>>> try to correct my thinking to avoid such problems.
>>>
>>>No you don't,
>>
>> When I first started pointing out the significance of the animals'
>> lives in these ngs
>
>You mistakenly assumed that other people are as stupid as you.
>
>The "animals' lives" are of no signifcance at all and I will prove it right
>now.
>
>Consider carefully what said in your last post, another example of the LoL
>disproving itself over and over again.
>
>A livestock animal that suffers horribly and one which lives a good life
>each are equally alive. So, if you simply "consider their lives" there is no
>difference,
Yes there is, which is WHY you people are opposed to considering
them as I've also pointed out. You love for people to consider their
lives when they are of negative value, and you want people to believe
that NONE of them have lives of positive value.
>nothing to consider which separates them,
Obviously there is, but you people dishonestly want everyone to
believe they are all of negative value because considering those that
are of positive value works against what you want to accomplish.
>therefore nothing
>relevant. It is only when you consider the way we treat them, the conditions
>we provide, that we are considering anything that we have any control over,
>that can make a positive difference.
>
>"Considering their lives" is empty, meaningless rhetoric.
You do want people to consider their lives when they are of
negative value, but are opposed to people considering them
when they are of positive value because that works against
your objective.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
>>9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>
> Yes, several have
All 3 of them were idiots.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:7bm315d3noe4nu5dq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:35:59 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>>
>>> 9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>>
>>There have been two or three, out of hundreds.
>
> The only people who have tried to oppose me have been
> misnomer advocates.
Of all your stupid claims, that one is the silliest. Ward? swamp? Mercer?
Ball? etc etc.. they're all ARAs?
What a complete chump you are.
>>That does not deter fuckwit
>>in the least, like all delusionals he sees his fatally flawed arguments as
>>obvious truths, and anyone who disagrees with him is part of a giant
>>conspiracy to eliminate livestock.
>
> It's obviously necessary to consider the animals, in order to
> consider the animals. I know that to be true,
Your statements just keep getting dumber and dumber..
dh
>On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:56:41 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:35:59 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> 9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>>>
>>>There have been two or three, out of hundreds.
>>
>> The only people who have tried to oppose me have been
>>misnomer advocates. The misnomer opponents who have
>>said they disagree have not even tried to oppose what I've
>>been pointing out except for one guy who presented a bunch
>>of misnomer arguments, and then got pissy because I pointed
>>that fact out and said I disagree with them.
>
>Of all your stupid claims, that one is the silliest.
It's true, whether we find the truth silly or not.
>Ward?
He's one who said he disagree, but never tried to give any
reason why. That is silly. But Ward was never one to advocate
decent AW as I do...he just opposed the misnomer. There are
those who don't care about promoting decent AW even though
they are opposed to the misnomer and Ward certainly appeared
to be one of them, which is the most likely reason he could not
relate to what I point out. Really it's the same sort of selfishness
that keeps you people from considering the animals, just going
in the opposite direction.
>swamp?
He's the one that got pissy because I pointed out what he did:
From: dh [to swamp]
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003
Message-ID: <085mbvkjb9gtllgl1...@4ax.com>
Good lord man, look at all these times you presented "AR"
arguments, and how many times you yourself said that's what they are:
_________________________________________________________
No, the ARs would say that's it's immoral for us to bring animals into
the world knowing their lives are going to be severely truncated. To
them, no life is better than short, cushy life even if the livestock
are unaware of their fate.
Again, the question is whether it would be more ethical not to create
these lives at all. AR would have us believe so. I don't share that
view
AR would argue
that creating such a life, no matter how many times it is benefitted,
is inherently wrong.
It's certainly part of the equation if one argues for their
elimination.
I agree w/ ar/evs that livestock would not be deprived if we failed to
provide them life. That doesn't make me ar or ev, or even a devil's
advocate.
You have a fundamental impasse, not w/ the arguments but w/ yourself.
You need to imagine a world where there is no ranching to understand
where the ar/evs are coming from.
...ending in slaughter, which trumps dubious benefits from a rare but
salient ar viewpoint.
How can a premature death be a benefit? Again, as much as I disagree
w/ ARs, they've a point here.
If animals weren't raised this wouldn't be an issue. Once again,the AR
argument is stronger than yours
Unfortunately, my reasons echo ar's. I see no harm to livestock in
letting them disappear, or benefit to them in getting to live. I don't
think they suffer horribly as ar would have us believe, but the
benefit is all ours.
���������������������������������������������������������
>Mercer?
He's another who said he disagreed but I could never get him
to try explaining why, so he doesn't count at all.
>Ball? [Goo] etc etc.. they're all ARAs?
Goo argued for the misnomer side, manically and consistently
for quite a few years. When challenged to present his supposed
opposition the Goober NEVER could do it. When challenged to
present his or your opposition you could NEVER do it either. I
challenge you to try presenting it now. Go:
>What a complete chump you are.
>>>That does not deter fuckwit
>>>in the least, like all delusionals he sees his fatally flawed arguments as
>>>obvious truths, and anyone who disagrees with him is part of a giant
>>>conspiracy to eliminate livestock.
>>
>> It's obviously necessary to consider the animals, in order to
>>consider the animals. I know that to be true, and don't believe
>>you are too stupid to understand the fact either. If you really
>>are that stupid, then you're just incredibly stupid. But if you're
>>not really that stupid then you are being dishonest for some
>>reason, the most likely being that you're in favor of the misnomer.
>>Either way, you have never explained how you want people to
>>think anticonsideration is ethically superior to having consideration.
>
>Your statements just keep getting dumber and dumber..
You have never tried, which is why we can find no examples
of you ever having tried. Try doing it now. GO!!!:
dh
>>>9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>>
>> Yes, several have and they have usually recognised it as
>>an obviously significant aspect of the situation, though one
>>woman did say she had never thought about it specifically
>>before. There was a consistent poster known as Goo (short for
>>Goobernicus) who was Dutch's hero (if not Dutch himself
>>posting under a different name, but that's another story...) who
>>tried to defend the misnomer by simply lying about what I was
>>saying. Because of a couple of mistakes I made in terminology
>>when I started 8-9 years ago Goo would lie and insist that
>>encouraging consideration of existing animals' lives somehow
>>meant that nonexistent "entities" were being treated unfairly,
>>suffering a loss, etc. I acknowledged my mistakes and explained
>>the truth countless times, but these people only care about the
>>elimination of domestic animals and they will tell any sort of lie
>>and try various other dishonest tricks in order to prevent people
>>in general from recognising the fact that many animals raised
>>for food have decent lives of positive value. Learning to
>>appreciate that works in favor of decent animal welfare, and
>>against the gross misnomer with the objective to eliminate them.
>
>All 3 of them were idiots.
There were certainly more than 3, and it's a safe bet that
every one of them was a supporter of decent AW. I KNOW
some of them were. In fact at least 3 of them have dedicated
their lives to providing decent lives for livestock. Polly, a
girl named Katey who was at the time going to an agricultural
college and working with fistulating cattle, and didderot.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:md48155ump4vuh1vq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:08:55 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:56:41 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:35:59 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> 9 years and not one person in all that time has agreed with you?
>>>>
>>>>There have been two or three, out of hundreds.
>>>
>>> The only people who have tried to oppose me have been
>>>misnomer advocates. The misnomer opponents who have
>>>said they disagree have not even tried to oppose what I've
>>>been pointing out except for one guy who presented a bunch
>>>of misnomer arguments, and then got pissy because I pointed
>>>that fact out and said I disagree with them.
>>
>>Of all your stupid claims, that one is the silliest.
>
> It's true, whether we find the truth silly or not.
>
>>Ward?
>
> He's one who said he disagree, but never tried to give any
> reason why.
ALL those people are definitely antis, so much for your "eliminationist"
bullshit.
All gave reasons why they oppose the LoL, you're just blind to the reasons,
either willfully or due to something missing in your brain.
dh
LOL! What's missing in my brain is THEIR opposition. At least Ward
and Etter didn't lie like you Goobers. Swamp gave a bunch of misnomer
arguments. That's all there was to that. So to sum it up:
Ward and Etter gave no reasons
Swamp gave misnomer reasons
You and the Goober told a bunch of lies
You have never been able to give a single good reason why anyone
should feel anticonsideration is superior to consideration.
By now I'm pretty well convinced that even you don't believe
anticonsideration is really superior, since you've never been
able to share any reason why a person should think it is.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:us5b15h49i6ql7n27...@4ax.com...
To sum it up, all the people who have been articulate, respected anti-AR
posters on this group for years according to you actually support AR.
Think about that for a moment, does it make sense? Isn't it more reasonable
to conclude that we all have serious problems with the LoL?
> By now I'm pretty well convinced that even you don't believe
> anticonsideration is really superior, since you've never been
> able to share any reason why a person should think it is.
This is the second most ridiculous type of statement you make. After all
these years and being shown literally hundreds of reasons why the LoL does
not make sense, you sit there are say that you have never been given a
reason.
This HAS TO be ADD.
Mark
He doesn't deny it, so I don't think that's the issue here. I think the
issue here is whether dh@ suffers from an associated co-existing condition
common among ADD sufferers known as ODD. ODD is usually associated with
children, but it's characteristics are often found to persist in adulthood.
A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
1. often loses temper
2. often argues with adults
3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
4. often deliberately annoys people
5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
7. is often angry and resentful
8. is often spiteful or vindictive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9 years?!!!!
dh
No, in fact I've never even indicated that was the case. Did you
really think I could be stupid enough to believe such a lie, or do you
have another reason for telling it?
>Think about that for a moment, does it make sense? Isn't it more reasonable
>to conclude that we all have serious problems with the LoL?
As I pointed out, only one of the few misnomer opponents who said
they didn't agree with me tried to back up his disagreement, and as I
showed many if not most of his "arguments" were problems that he
himself pointed out were associated with misnomer advocates, and that
I myself disagree with and he probably did too.
> > By now I'm pretty well convinced that even you don't believe
>> anticonsideration is really superior, since you've never been
>> able to share any reason why a person should think it is.
>
>This is the second most ridiculous type of statement you make. After all
>these years and being shown literally hundreds of reasons why the LoL does
>not make sense,
That's a blatant lie. You say there are litterally hundreds, and I
point out that you can't even provide a dozen. I challenge you to try.
You will necessarily fail.
>you sit there are say that you have never been given a
>reason.
I'll say that too. Not only are you lying about there being
hundreds while you can't even produce a dozen, I say that you can't
even provide ONE good one. I challenge you to try providing even one
good reason to believe anticonsideration is superior to consideration.
Since you can't provide hundreds or even a dozen, try providing one
good one. GO!!!:
dh
That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am
an adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't make a
big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence on me,
whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these ngs I can
point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it. So
these places are a place to take out frustration. Some groups are
places to try to learn, but not the animal related groups. Not that
dude that said ADD doesn't exist either. In fact those are the sort of
people I like to expose the dishonesty of. They are the type I avoid
in real life, and look for to expose in ngs.
So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
objective:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - "Dutch"
that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths. Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
suggestion the entire time. So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
will be able to do.
Dutch
> So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
> domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
> which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
> they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
> objective:
PeTA doesn't hide the fact that they advocate the cessation of the meat
industry. Its plastered all over their web site and literature.
> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
> of animal use." - "Dutch"
That's true, they contribute in_spite_of not supporting the ideas of Ingrid
Newkirk but because PeTA promotes worthy anti-cruelty causes. A good example
of this is political activist and comedian Bill Maher who serves on the
board of PeTA, is a good friend and admirer of Ingrid Newkirk, but who is a
non-vegetarian.
> that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
> than their deaths.
You're talking nonsense, you're trying to leverage off a silly position
taken by AR by concocting an even sillier one in opposition. The only thing
about their lives that warrants "consideration" is the manner in which we
treat them.
The fact they are alive does not disqualify us from using them for food and
the fact they are alive is not a reason TO use them for food, except that it
makes them taste good.
> Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
> misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
> suggestion the entire time.
To "Mark", he means "ARA" by "misnomer advocates" and he knows that I am not
one, I am an avowed meat lover. He knows it, he lies constantly.
> So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
> it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
> been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
> anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
> consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
> explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
> try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
> been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
> it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
> noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
> say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
> will be able to do.
The dishonest trick is your habit of ignoring and dismissing every argument
that is made to show why your "consideration" is meaningless nonsense, then
LYING and asserting that no arguments have been made. For example in the
last post I showed that your "consideration" does nothing whatsoever for
animals, or people, and that it is essentially a tawdry little mind game you
play to make yourself feel good. That is a valid assessment, and you have no
answer for it except to utter empty denials.
Mark
>On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:24:24 +0100, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:39:36 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
snipped
>>>This HAS TO be ADD.
>>
>>He doesn't deny it, so I don't think that's the issue here. I think the
>>issue here is whether dh@ suffers from an associated co-existing condition
>>common among ADD sufferers known as ODD. ODD is usually associated with
>>children, but it's characteristics are often found to persist in adulthood.
>>A person suffering with an oppositional defiant disorder
>>1. often loses temper
>>2. often argues with adults
>>3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
>>4. often deliberately annoys people
>>5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
>>6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
>>7. is often angry and resentful
>>8. is often spiteful or vindictive
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>>
>>People with ODD are notoriously difficult to deal with. 9 years?!!!!
>
> That does go on, and it's very annoying in real life. Since I am
>an adult, it seems pretty stupid to make a point of that part, imo. I
>see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't make a
>big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence on me,
>whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these ngs I can
>point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't like it. So
>these places are a place to take out frustration.
What you've admitted to here is shameful. How can you hope to be taken
seriously if all you've done for the last 9 years is use discussion groups
as a means to take out your frustrations on the serious posters there? What
you're doing is dishonest. You're not arguing in good faith. You're trying
to disrupt because you can't take part and want others who can to feel as
frustrated as you do. You're a troll.
Dutch
"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:o2hn15p3kokqnjjqo...@4ax.com...
You're right Mark, he is not arguing in good faith. He insists for example
that I reject his proposition because I am an Animal Rights Activist even
though I have told him repeatedly that I support the raising of livestock,
and the use of animals in medical research. His "proposition" fwiw, is a
roughly hewn version of "the logic of the larder", a bit of circular sophism
that has been floating around for centuries.
Mark
>that I reject his proposition because I am an Animal Rights Activist even
>though I have told him repeatedly that I support the raising of livestock,
>and the use of animals in medical research. His "proposition" fwiw, is a
>roughly hewn version of "the logic of the larder", a bit of circular sophism
>that has been floating around for centuries.
>
Rights Activist and support the livestock industry at the same time? dh@
cross posted this thread to include alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. I don't
know why he did that. I don't know anything about animal rights.
dh
I am more honest about all this than most people. We all do the
same sort of thing, but other people like you probably would want to
attempt to get people to believe you have a more noble objective or
whatever. Or can you admit that you do it for similar reasons like
everybody does?
>How can you hope to be taken
>seriously if all you've done for the last 9 years is use discussion groups
>as a means to take out your frustrations on the serious posters there?
LOL! I go into groups and point out significant facts that they
hate to see pointed out, and are opposed to seeing taken into
consideration. In doing that I'm automatically the enemy, an idiot, a
troll, and whatever other insults they can come up with. I know that
going in. When you go into a group that wants to eliminate animals
raised for food and suggest that people take those animals' lives into
consideration as well as their deaths, and the fact that many of them
have decent lives of positive value, you can expect to be attacked in
whatever ways they can. What can people do when they want to oppose
the truth? That's one thing they can't destroy, and they're not going
to just accept it either, so what can they do? It's fun to see plus
it's good for them to have those aspects pointed out so they enter
their brains, even if they can never learn to appreciate them. So I'm
doing more than just getting out frustration....I'm doing that TOO.
Something to keep in mind in this particular case is how strongly
people are opposed to seeing the truth revealed. "Dutch" for example
suggested I blow my head off rather than point out the huge difference
between decent animal welfare and the gross mi$nomer "animal rights".
>What you're doing is dishonest.
That's dishonest. Mainly what I do is point out facts people hate.
In their attempts to oppose the facts, peole usually resort to insults
and dishonesty. We see you creeping that direction already ;-)
>You're not arguing in good faith.
I'm pointing out things people don't like to think about, like the
fact that people claiming to be strong atheists usually appear to be
ashamed to admit they have the faith that's necessary in order for
them to be one. That's one of my favorites :-)
>You're trying
>to disrupt because you can't take part and want others who can to feel as
>frustrated as you do.
I point out significant aspects of situations that people want to
disregard. It's what I do. It's a good thing, even though the people
I'm pointing things out to hate it. It causes cognitive dissonance,
and when that happens people often behave in absurd ways trying to
change reality or whatever to relieve their own frustration.
>You're a troll.
Everyone trolls. How do you consider your own trolling to be
superior, do you have an argument about that?
ps, in case you don't think there's any good reason to oppose
advocates of the misnomer, look at some of these things those people
support and are responsible for:
_________________________________________________________
April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights
Militia
offered to return �one-sixth� of the remains of the 82 year old
mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises
guinea
pigs for biomedical research. The woman�s body was stolen from her
grave
in October. . .
February 19, 2005 Chino Hills, CA:
Animal rights activists vandalized the home of the chief veterinarian
for the
city of Los Angeles. They threw rocks through windows, and left behind
fliers
with the veterinarian�s photo, accusing her of animal cruelty. ALF is
suspected in this incident as well as prior threats against the
veterinarian
and other employees of the LA City Animal Shelter.
January 12, 2005 Auburn, CA:
Five incendiary devices were found in an office building under
construction.
Devices of the same type were discovered in an upscale subdivision in
near-by
Lincoln on December 27. Official stated the firebombs were capable of
extensive
damage. Graffiti found on the Lincoln homes included �U will pay� and
�Enjoy the
world as it is - as long as you can.� In a letter sent to the Auburn
Journal on
January 18, ELF claimed responsibility, and warned of more terrorist
attempts to
come - "We are setting a new precedent, where there will be at least
one or more
actions every few weeks," it read. The Joint Terrorism Task Force is
investigating.
September 5, 2004: East Peckham, England: Animal Rights activists
vowed
to launch ten "terror attacks" a night across Britain. An ALF
spokesman at
a "training camp" for AR activists to learn "direct action" said "Ten
attacks
a night would be an absolute minimum "Think of the number of butcher
shops: at least a couple of windows are already being broken every
night
and then you have people spraying graffiti on cars to those targeting
employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences." There have been reports of at
least six serious incidents in the last ten days, including attacks on
cars
and other property of people connection with GlaxoSmithKline, HLS, and
a farm raising guinea pigs for research.
August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service
lab
in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on
maintaining a
healthy forest ecosystem. An e-mail from Elf's office said "While
innocent
life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is
necessary,
we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice,
and
provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal
battles,
pleading protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to
achieve." It further stated that all Forest Service stations were
targeted,
and, if rebuilt, the Pennsylvania station would be targeted for
complete
destruction.
September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals
over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite
detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that
Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no
risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and
one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At
trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.
August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of three
years in
jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop and two others
donned ski
masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived home, bludgeoning him with
wooden
staves and pickaxe handles. DNA on the handles and Blenkinsop�s
clothing
helped convict him of the offense.
June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a
"Survivor" series cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including
children, as
well. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin, who lasted six
weeks on
"Survivor," attributed the attack to his killing of a pig for food on
the series.
May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested
two men and put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in
connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning of
live
animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed allegedly by
a
self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal cruelty. Anthony Ryan
Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21 were arrested. The raid
turned up a headless, skinned cat in the refrigerator, along with
other
animal skeletons, including a dog, some mice and rats, and the videos.
Police are searching for the third person seen in the videos.
May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The
baseball bat
brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised him and sprayed a
would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22, 2001. One of the men was
arrested at an animal sanctuary run by TV script writer Carla Lane.
May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as chairman of
the
government body that supervises research involving animals. Segal
received
a faxed death threat and threats of violence against his family.
April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere with
or
recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to obstruct or
intimidate
a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up to one year in jail and a
$5,000
fine. The measure sailed through the legislature in record time after
reports
of blind people being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both
verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from their
owners.
April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the filing of
an
amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense
League, In Defense of Animals, and certain individuals. The amended
filing
asserts claims under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization
Statute (RICO) and cited physical attacks on individual employees,
death
threats, bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment
and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with
contractual
relations and economic advantage. The original plaintiffs in the
action were
the Stephens Group and its wholly owned investment-banking subsidiary,
Stephens, Inc.
February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence, the
managing
director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as he arrived home
by
three masked goons wielding baseball bats or ax handles. Brian Cass,
53,
bludgeoned with head and body wounds and bruises, including a 3-inch
scalp gash, was saved from further injury by his girl friend's screams
and
the aid of two passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the
attackers, but was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers.
Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the work
of
HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking cures for
dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In reaction to
the
attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer with the group,
condoned
the attack and expressed surprise that it didn't happen more often,
declaring that Cass got off "lightly." Other animal rights groups
publicly
backed off condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it
could occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.
February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested in
connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven
agricultural
businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs were intercepted, but
5
of 10 others exploded, causing serious eye and facial injury to two
adults,
and leg wounds to a 6-year old daughter of one of the intended
victims.
Authorities considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The
businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply, and a
livestock auction agency.
February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders. Army
experts were called out to defuse the bomb.
February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which
was
defused without incident by army experts.
February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George Murray, his
wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by masked animal
rights
activists. At least five hunt members were injured by the stick- and
whip-wielding attackers. Murray was beaten, kicked in the head and
face
and his wife was punched in the face. They were threatened with death
as
retribution for the death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.
January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the
British
Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was not injured.
January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and a
cancer
research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and defused by
authorities before being opened by the recipients. Both bomb attacks
were
linked to letter bomb mailings that started in mid-December.
January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by
letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.
January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding
letter
bomb.
December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded,
injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the
mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.
October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were on a
publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be "legitimate
targets" by
the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven had received threatening
letters on
September 4, 2000. Amateur whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by
one
bomb in South Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's
vehicle in East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate
and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered lethal.
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
>> domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
>> which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
>> they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
>> objective:
>
>PeTA doesn't hide the fact that they advocate the cessation of the meat
>industry. Its plastered all over their web site and literature.
>
>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>> of animal use." - "Dutch"
>
>That's true, they contribute in_spite_of not supporting the ideas of Ingrid
>Newkirk but because PeTA promotes worthy anti-cruelty causes.
It's because they are led to believe that PeTA means something it
does not. Even if they learn that PeTA is a misnomer organization and
not an AW organization it appears that plenty of them are fooled by
the misnomer itself, which of course is the reason why eliminationists
use it to begin with.
>A good example
>of this is political activist and comedian Bill Maher who serves on the
>board of PeTA, is a good friend and admirer of Ingrid Newkirk, but who is a
>non-vegetarian.
That's sick, but he's obviously only in it for the money. He
probably thinks they're a bunch of kooks, and has a lot more reasons
to feel that way than I do. Or then again maybe he's like you now that
you mention it, and PRETENDING to be a meat consumer hoping to win
their trust by dishonestly pretending to be "one of them". I wonder if
he would even oppose consideration for the lives of the animals he
claims to eat like you do.
>> that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
>> than their deaths.
>
>You're talking nonsense,
Only to those of you who are opposed to their existence to begin
with. Anyone who's not retarded and not opposed to eating meat, would
have no reason to oppose giving the animals' lives more consideration
than their deaths.
>you're trying to leverage off a silly position
>taken by AR by concocting an even sillier one in opposition. The only thing
>about their lives that warrants "consideration" is the manner in which we
>treat them.
>
>The fact they are alive does not disqualify us from using them for food and
>the fact they are alive is not a reason TO use them for food, except that it
>makes them taste good.
It has nothing to do with their flavor and is a necessary aspect
to consider in order to evaluate whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for
humans to raise them for food, as I've pointed out countless times.
>> Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
>> misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
>> suggestion the entire time.
>
>To "Mark", he means "ARA" by "misnomer advocates" and he knows that I am not
>one, I am an avowed meat lover. He knows it,
That's a blatant lie, since there's no way I could know it. Not
only can I not know it, but I find it very hard to believe.
>he lies constantly.
That's another lie, you can't present any examples of me lying
about anything, and you never have been able to. In contrast to that,
we have a clear example of you lying twice in the same paragraph!
>> So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
>> it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
>> been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
>> anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
>> consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
>> explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
>> try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
>> been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
>> it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
>> noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
>> say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
>> will be able to do.
>
>The dishonest trick is your habit of ignoring and dismissing every argument
I dismiss the lame ones that seem dishonest and that you're
completely unable to back up, which so far has turned out to be "all"
of them though by "all" it only amounts to maybe two or three
attempts, not even a dozen much less hundreds as you dishonestly tried
to claim. VERY! dishonestly!!!
>that is made to show why your "consideration" is meaningless nonsense, then
>LYING and asserting that no arguments have been made.
No good arguments have ever been presented. Your only attempts
afaik have been to dishonestly claim that taking the animals' lives
into consideration is somehow a form of sophistry but you can't
explain how it could be, and your "source" of that mysterious and
unexplainable absurd sounding concept is an imaginary talking pig,
dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer Herny "ar" Salt.
>For example in the
>last post I showed that your "consideration" does nothing whatsoever for
>animals, or people,
In contrast to that dishonesty it's what makes things like cage
free eggs available, and it gives people a more realistic
interpretation of the big picture than it does to try to refuse taking
the animals into consideration.
>and that it is essentially a tawdry little mind game you
>play to make yourself feel good.
Thinking things through can help people gain appreciation for the
lives of positive value many animals experience because humans raise
them for food...and other reasons too. Since that works against the
objective to eliminate them--and only for that reason--people like
yourself are opposed to seeing other people develop such appreciation.
As I continue to point out: People who really are in favor of decent
AW as you very poorly and dishonestly pretend to be, would have no
reason at all to be opposed to giving the animals' lives as much or
more consideration than their deaths.
>That is a valid assessment, and you have no
>answer for it except to utter empty denials.
What I point out is an aspect of the situation you people hate
because as we both know and I point out but you wish you could deny,
decent AW works against the misnomer:
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and
conceptual
reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard
the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized
by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal
rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA
cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for
human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted
for the
benefit of both humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
Buzzard
> (snip)
> fact that people claiming to be strong atheists usually appear to be
> ashamed to admit they have the faith that's necessary in order for
> them to be one. That's one of my favorites :-)
There is perhaps a counterintuitive reason why atheists tend
to deny that they have "faith". I think that reason is that
there is more than one kind of faith, and that only one kind
is usualy thought of when the word is mentioned, and its not
the the kind that most atheists have. But I'm going to leave
that for a separate post that I will eventually post, entitled
"Faith and logic", or some such title. But not today.
I have to go to work tomorrow.
Dutch
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:08:41 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
>>> domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
>>> which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
>>> they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
>>> objective:
>>
>>PeTA doesn't hide the fact that they advocate the cessation of the meat
>>industry. Its plastered all over their web site and literature.
>>
>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>> of animal use." - "Dutch"
>>
>>That's true, they contribute in_spite_of not supporting the ideas of
>>Ingrid
>>Newkirk but because PeTA promotes worthy anti-cruelty causes.
>
> It's because they are led to believe that PeTA means something it
> does not.
Nope
Even if they learn that PeTA is a misnomer organization and
> not an AW organization it appears that plenty of them are fooled by
> the misnomer itself, which of course is the reason why eliminationists
> use it to begin with.
>
>>A good example
>>of this is political activist and comedian Bill Maher who serves on the
>>board of PeTA, is a good friend and admirer of Ingrid Newkirk, but who is
>>a
>>non-vegetarian.
>
> That's sick
It's not sick at all, there's nothing wrong with it.
> but he's obviously only in it for the money.
That's highly unlikely, but that doesn't matter to you.
> He
> probably thinks they're a bunch of kooks,
He thinks they do good for animals, so do I.
> and has a lot more reasons
> to feel that way than I do. Or then again maybe he's like you now that
> you mention it, and PRETENDING to be a meat consumer hoping to win
> their trust by dishonestly pretending to be "one of them". I wonder if
> he would even oppose consideration for the lives of the animals he
> claims to eat like you do.
"Consideration" aka the LoL is utter nonsense.
>
>>> that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
>>> than their deaths.
>>
>>You're talking nonsense,
>
> Only to those of you
No, to anyone with a half a brain.
who are opposed to their existence to begin
> with. Anyone who's not retarded and not opposed to eating meat, would
> have no reason to oppose giving the animals' lives more consideration
> than their deaths.
>
>>you're trying to leverage off a silly position
>>taken by AR by concocting an even sillier one in opposition. The only
>>thing
>>about their lives that warrants "consideration" is the manner in which we
>>treat them.
>>
>>The fact they are alive does not disqualify us from using them for food
>>and
>>the fact they are alive is not a reason TO use them for food, except that
>>it
>>makes them taste good.
>
> It has nothing to do with their flavor and is a necessary aspect
> to consider in order to evaluate whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for
> humans to raise them for food, as I've pointed out countless times.
Yet you can't tell my why.
>
>>> Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
>>> misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
>>> suggestion the entire time.
>>
>>To "Mark", he means "ARA" by "misnomer advocates" and he knows that I am
>>not
>>one, I am an avowed meat lover. He knows it,
>
> That's a blatant lie, since there's no way I could know it. Not
> only can I not know it, but I find it very hard to believe.
You have no reason to disbelieve it.
>
>>he lies constantly.
>
> That's another lie, you can't present any examples of me lying
> about anything, and you never have been able to. In contrast to that,
> we have a clear example of you lying twice in the same paragraph!
You lie when you say no arguments against the LoL have been presented.
>
>>> So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
>>> it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
>>> been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
>>> anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
>>> consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
>>> explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
>>> try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
>>> been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
>>> it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
>>> noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
>>> say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
>>> will be able to do.
>>
>>The dishonest trick is your habit of ignoring and dismissing every
>>argument
>
> I dismiss the lame ones that seem dishonest
And then dishonestly declare that no arguments have ever been made. You
don't say "I don't accept the arguments" which would be fair, instead you
choose to deliberately lie.
> and that you're
> completely unable to back up, which so far has turned out to be "all"
> of them though by "all" it only amounts to maybe two or three
> attempts, not even a dozen much less hundreds as you dishonestly tried
> to claim. VERY! dishonestly!!!
>
>>that is made to show why your "consideration" is meaningless nonsense,
>>then
>>LYING and asserting that no arguments have been made.
>
> No good arguments have ever been presented. Your only attempts
> afaik have been to dishonestly claim that taking the animals' lives
> into consideration is somehow a form of sophistry but you can't
> explain how it could be, and your "source" of that mysterious and
> unexplainable absurd sounding concept is an imaginary talking pig,
> dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer Herny "ar" Salt.
>
>>For example in the
>>last post I showed that your "consideration" does nothing whatsoever for
>>animals, or people,
>
> In contrast to that dishonesty it's what makes things like cage
> free eggs available,
Show how.
> and it gives people a more realistic
> interpretation of the big picture than it does to try to refuse taking
> the animals into consideration.
How does the LoL do that? Just saying it is not good enough.
>>and that it is essentially a tawdry little mind game you
>>play to make yourself feel good.
>
> Thinking things through can help people gain appreciation for the
> lives of positive value many animals experience because humans raise
> them for food.
The fact that we end up eating them does not contribute to them having
better lives.
..and other reasons too. Since that works against the
> objective to eliminate them--and only for that reason--people like
> yourself are opposed to seeing other people develop such appreciation.
The LoL is not appreciation, it's self-serving mind games,
> As I continue to point out: People who really are in favor of decent
> AW as you very poorly and dishonestly pretend to be, would have no
> reason at all to be opposed to giving the animals' lives as much or
> more consideration than their deaths.
I give neither their lives nor their deaths the slightest consideration.
There is no reason whatsoever to do so. What is worthy of consideration is
how they are treated during their lives, including during the act of
slaughtering them. ARAs are foolish to make a fuss about their deaths,
you're just feeding that same folly with the LoL.
>>That is a valid assessment, and you have no
>>answer for it except to utter empty denials.
>
> What I point out is an aspect of the situation you people hate
There is no meaning to the aspect you point out, except in your addled mind.
Dutch
"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote i
Sorry, he did it because he's a troll, and an idiot. I won't trouble you
further.
pearl
Salute, Mark. You sound like an intelligent and perceptive person, so it should
be easy enough to convey to you what animal rights is about. AR refers to the
recognition that non-humans have morally-considerable interests, e.g. liberty in
the natural evolutionary habitat, natural social interactions and familial affection,
and avoidance of pain and death, .. maintaining that those interests should be
respected by humans, preceding in moral imperative our trivial self-interests.
Over the past nine years I've seen these two+ "antis" arguing the same stuff
over and over and over and over...... and all peas from the same rotten pod.
To correct sophist "dutch" (aka ditch , dodge) above, ! there's no such thing
as a "respectable" anti. That's synonymous with saying there were respected
child abusers, or rapists, torturers, or murderers. People who actively abuse
or go out of their way to defend, support and promote abuse are despicable.
dh@ is a real sick puppy. He revels in brutality and killing. His 'argument'
here has been that raising "domestic animals" is justifiable by virtue of the
idea that those animals wouldn't "get to experience life" had they not been
bred for 'food'. Wildlife he disregards completely. "Wild animals are a
totally different group". (Wha..???). Wild animals are wholly expendable,
especially if they might dare try and grab a bit of its cruel killing business.
And he kills. A lot. He ignores evidence of impacts of the meat industry
on wildlife, whole ecosystems, the planet, humans.. and re-re- posts spam.
That's dh@. The troll (applause M) who argues "consideration for lives".
"Dutch" is another 'interesting' case. Admitted: self-deluded, enjoys making
others feel bad. Evasive proven liar. After nine years of trying to find some
justification or support for his 'cause' (he likes the taste, and fat is addictive),
and failing miserably at every turn, ah! recently he's just given up, claiming
that no justification is necessary. There ya go - problem sor.. doesn't exist.
It's sometimes a laugh a minute in a.a.e.v, I can tell you. HTH. All the best.
"pearl"
dh
wrote:
>dh@ is a real sick puppy. He revels in brutality and killing. His 'argument'
>here has been that raising "domestic animals" is justifiable by virtue of the
>idea that those animals wouldn't "get to experience life" had they not been
>bred for 'food'.
Your dishonesty is showing. It's certainly true that they only
experience life because they are raised for food, but the animals only
benefit when they have decent lives of positive value, which many of
them do. You have never known me to say it's all justifiable
regardless of conditions, and you so dishonestly are suggesting.
>Wildlife he disregards completely.
That's a blatant lie. For one thing I point out that you misnomer
advocates want to impose wildlife population "management" that would
produce MORE suffering for the animals, not less. Starvation, disease
and nonhuman predators are what you want to have "manage" wildlife
populations, none of which are capable of even trying to be humane,
and all of which would produce a lot more suffering for the animals
especially for pregnant females and young and baby animals. Already I
have exposed two of your lies.
>"Wild animals are a
>totally different group". (Wha..???). Wild animals are wholly expendable,
I also point out that you misnomer huggers contribute to the same
wildlife deaths that everyone else does by your use of roads and
buildings, paper and wood products, your own food, your use of
electricity, etc.
>especially if they might dare try and grab a bit of its cruel killing business.
>And he kills. A lot. He ignores evidence of impacts of the meat industry
>on wildlife, whole ecosystems, the planet,
That's yet another lie, since I've pointed out that wildlife is
much more welcome in grazing areas than it is in crop fields many
times.
>humans.. and re-re- posts spam.
>That's dh@. The troll (applause M) who argues "consideration for lives".
And people who claim to care about the animals oppose having
consideration for their lives. It's hard for me to feel wrong for
suggesting you try to develop something that no one should have had to
tell you you should develop, and that you are opposed to seeing anyone
else develop.
dh
One of the first things to learn about it is that in regards to
domestic animals it's a gross misnomer, since it wouldn't provide them
with improved lives, longer lives, or any life at all. Their goal is
to ELIMINATE domestic animals, and they strive toward that goal
cloaked in the dishonest contribution generating misnomer they've been
enjoying getting away with for...how many years? How many millions of
dollars have misnomer organizations taken in just because they use a
dishonest term with which to represent themselves?
Another thing to learn right off is:
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
dh
<buz...@domain.invalid.net> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> (snip)
>> I'm pointing out things people don't like to think about, like the
>> fact that people claiming to be strong atheists usually appear to be
>> ashamed to admit they have the faith that's necessary in order for
>> them to be one. That's one of my favorites :-)
>
>There is perhaps a counterintuitive reason why atheists tend
>to deny that they have "faith".
Yes, they want to pretend that their faith is somehow superior to
that of other people by pretending it's more than what it is, which is
simply faith that they put in a guess.
>I think that reason is that
>there is more than one kind of faith,
Faith is the degree of confidence a person has that a belief they
hold is correct. The degree of faith a person has that God does not
exist is what determins how strong an atheist they are or are not. If
they have no faith, they are not a strong atheist.
>and that only one kind
>is usualy thought of when the word is mentioned, and its not
>the the kind that most atheists have.
Their faith is the same as everyone else's.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:08:41 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
>>>> domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
>>>> which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
>>>> they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
>>>> objective:
>>>
>>>PeTA doesn't hide the fact that they advocate the cessation of the meat
>>>industry. Its plastered all over their web site and literature.
>>>
>>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>>> of animal use." - "Dutch"
>>>
>>>That's true, they contribute in_spite_of not supporting the ideas of
>>>Ingrid
>>>Newkirk but because PeTA promotes worthy anti-cruelty causes.
>>
>> It's because they are led to believe that PeTA means something it
>> does not.
>
>Nope
We both know that's a lie:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
>> Even if they learn that PeTA is a misnomer organization and
>> not an AW organization it appears that plenty of them are fooled by
>> the misnomer itself, which of course is the reason why eliminationists
>> use it to begin with.
>>
>>>A good example
>>>of this is political activist and comedian Bill Maher who serves on the
>>>board of PeTA, is a good friend and admirer of Ingrid Newkirk, but who is
>>>a
>>>non-vegetarian.
>>
>> That's sick
>
>It's not sick at all, there's nothing wrong with it.
>
>> but he's obviously only in it for the money.
>
>That's highly unlikely, but that doesn't matter to you.
>
>> He
>> probably thinks they're a bunch of kooks,
>
>He thinks they do good for animals, so do I.
They exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their goal
to eliminate the very animals they so dishonestly are pretending they
want to do good for.
>> and has a lot more reasons
>> to feel that way than I do. Or then again maybe he's like you now that
>> you mention it, and PRETENDING to be a meat consumer hoping to win
>> their trust by dishonestly pretending to be "one of them". I wonder if
>> he would even oppose consideration for the lives of the animals he
>> claims to eat like you do.
>
>"Consideration" aka the LoL is utter nonsense.
>
>>
>>>> that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
>>>> than their deaths.
>>>
>>>You're talking nonsense,
>>
>> Only to those of you
>
>No
LOL! Yes, only to those of you who oppose their existence.
>> who are opposed to their existence to begin
>> with. Anyone who's not retarded and not opposed to eating meat, would
>> have no reason to oppose giving the animals' lives more consideration
>> than their deaths.
>>
>>>you're trying to leverage off a silly position
>>>taken by AR by concocting an even sillier one in opposition. The only
>>>thing
>>>about their lives that warrants "consideration" is the manner in which we
>>>treat them.
>>>
>>>The fact they are alive does not disqualify us from using them for food
>>>and
>>>the fact they are alive is not a reason TO use them for food, except that
>>>it
>>>makes them taste good.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with their flavor and is a necessary aspect
>> to consider in order to evaluate whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for
>> humans to raise them for food, as I've pointed out countless times.
>
>Yet you can't tell my why.
I've explained it's a necessary part of developing a realistic
interpretation of the big picture, specifically what the animals we're
discussing get out of the arrangement. You lied again/still.
>>>> Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
>>>> misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
>>>> suggestion the entire time.
>>>
>>>To "Mark", he means "ARA" by "misnomer advocates" and he knows that I am
>>>not
>>>one, I am an avowed meat lover. He knows it,
>>
>> That's a blatant lie, since there's no way I could know it. Not
>> only can I not know it, but I find it very hard to believe.
>
>You have no reason to disbelieve it.
There's another lie. In fact the truth is that I have ONLY reason
to disbelieve it. Being as familiar with you people and you in
particular as I am, the fact that you say it is reason to disbelieve
it.
>>>he lies constantly.
>>
>> That's another lie, you can't present any examples of me lying
>> about anything, and you never have been able to. In contrast to that,
>> we have a clear example of you lying twice in the same paragraph!
>
>You lie when you say no arguments against the LoL have been presented.
No good ones have. Your lies are certainly not only not good
reasons, but they are not reasons at all.
>>>> So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
>>>> it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
>>>> been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
>>>> anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
>>>> consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
>>>> explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
>>>> try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
>>>> been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
>>>> it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
>>>> noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
>>>> say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
>>>> will be able to do.
>>>
>>>The dishonest trick is your habit of ignoring and dismissing every
>>>argument
>>
>> I dismiss the lame ones that seem dishonest
>
>And then dishonestly declare that no arguments have ever been made. You
>don't say "I don't accept the arguments" which would be fair, instead you
>choose to deliberately lie.
You haven't given any reasons, litteraly. You may feel that you
have, but your lies are not reasons, and since you have given no good
reasons it is fair to say that you have given none.
>> and that you're
>> completely unable to back up, which so far has turned out to be "all"
>> of them though by "all" it only amounts to maybe two or three
>> attempts, not even a dozen much less hundreds as you dishonestly tried
>> to claim. VERY! dishonestly!!!
>>
>>>that is made to show why your "consideration" is meaningless nonsense,
>>>then
>>>LYING and asserting that no arguments have been made.
>>
>> No good arguments have ever been presented. Your only attempts
>> afaik have been to dishonestly claim that taking the animals' lives
>> into consideration is somehow a form of sophistry but you can't
>> explain how it could be, and your "source" of that mysterious and
>> unexplainable absurd sounding concept is an imaginary talking pig,
>> dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer Herny "ar" Salt.
>>
>>>For example in the
>>>last post I showed that your "consideration" does nothing whatsoever for
>>>animals, or people,
>>
>> In contrast to that dishonesty it's what makes things like cage
>> free eggs available,
>
>Show how.
People have to decide they are willing to pay the extra money to
contribute to life for cage free hens instead of caged hens.
>> and it gives people a more realistic
>> interpretation of the big picture than it does to try to refuse taking
>> the animals into consideration.
>
>How does the LoL do that?
Because their lives are a very significant aspect of the
situation, and especially of any evaluation of whether or not it's
cruel TO THEM for people to raise them for food, as I've pointed out
to you many many many many....times.
>Just saying it is not good enough.
>
>>>and that it is essentially a tawdry little mind game you
>>>play to make yourself feel good.
>>
>> Thinking things through can help people gain appreciation for the
>> lives of positive value many animals experience because humans raise
>> them for food.
>
>The fact that we end up eating them does not contribute to them having
>better lives.
That doesn't mean anything. At best you're just trying to draw
attention away from the fact that they only experience life because
they are raised for food.
>..and other reasons too. Since that works against the
>> objective to eliminate them--and only for that reason--people like
>> yourself are opposed to seeing other people develop such appreciation.
>
>The LoL is not appreciation,
That's another blatant lie, since it certainly is to those who can
appreciate the fact that millions of animals experience decent lives
of positive value because humans raise them for food.
>it's self-serving mind games,
It's a very significant aspect of the situation that misnomer
advocates are opposed to seeing taken into consideration because it
works against what they want to accomplish.
Mark, notice I'm consistently doing what I said I do: Pointing out
facts that people hate to see taken into consideration.
>> As I continue to point out: People who really are in favor of decent
>> AW as you very poorly and dishonestly pretend to be, would have no
>> reason at all to be opposed to giving the animals' lives as much or
>> more consideration than their deaths.
>
>I give neither their lives nor their deaths the slightest consideration.
The purity of your selfishness prevents it, but that's really not
something to brag about.
>There is no reason whatsoever to do so. What is worthy of consideration is
>how they are treated during their lives, including during the act of
>slaughtering them. ARAs are foolish to make a fuss about their deaths,
>you're just feeding that same folly with the LoL.
>
>
>>>That is a valid assessment, and you have no
>>>answer for it except to utter empty denials.
>>
>> What I point out is an aspect of the situation you people hate
>
>There is no meaning to the aspect you point out, except in your addled mind.
That's a lie, since their lives have significant meaning to the
billons of animals we're dicussing, and also to some humans.
pearl
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:56:42 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >dh@ is a real sick puppy. He revels in brutality and killing. His 'argument'
> >here has been that raising "domestic animals" is justifiable by virtue of the
> >idea that those animals wouldn't "get to experience life" had they not been
> >bred for 'food'.
>
> Your dishonesty is showing. It's certainly true that they only
> experience life because they are raised for food, but the animals only
> benefit when they have decent lives of positive value, which many of
> them do. You have never known me to say it's all justifiable
> regardless of conditions, and you so dishonestly are suggesting.
You think constantly being tethered to a box is a "life of positive value".
Likewise spending a few short weeks packed in a stinking shed. Fool.
> >Wildlife he disregards completely.
>
> That's a blatant lie. For one thing I point out that you misnomer
> advocates want to impose wildlife population "management" that would
> produce MORE suffering for the animals, not less. Starvation, disease
> and nonhuman predators are what you want to have "manage" wildlife
> populations, none of which are capable of even trying to be humane,
> and all of which would produce a lot more suffering for the animals
> especially for pregnant females and young and baby animals. Already I
> have exposed two of your lies.
You're the one who's lying. Wildlife thrives abundantly when left alone.
Free animals have a fighting or fleeing probable chance, 'livestock' don't.
Natural processes are way outside dh@'s capacity. Facts are ignored.
> >"Wild animals are a
> >totally different group". (Wha..???). Wild animals are wholly expendable,
>
> I also point out that you misnomer huggers contribute to the same
> wildlife deaths that everyone else does by your use of roads and
> buildings, paper and wood products, your own food, your use of
> electricity, etc.
Failing to find a credible defence for its highly destructive choices and
actions, evasively resorts to lowlife invalid ad hominem and tu quoqe.
ARAs may be unable to completely avoid a cruel uncaring system.
Heaven knows that what we're striving for is a caring, kind, world.
dh@ doesn't get it. He's incapable of it, because he knows not what
compassion is, or consideration, or empathy, or kindness. Psycho.
> >especially if they might dare try and grab a bit of its cruel killing business.
> >And he kills. A lot. He ignores evidence of impacts of the meat industry
> >on wildlife, whole ecosystems, the planet,
>
> That's yet another lie, since I've pointed out that wildlife is
> much more welcome in grazing areas than it is in crop fields many
> times.
False dichotomy. Refusal to acknowledge the continually repeated fact
that a vegan diet requires a fraction of land, water and other resources
an 'omnivorous' diet does. More than one third of all the planet's land
is used to feed domestic 'food' animals. Re-adopting our evolutionary
frugivorous diet would free-up and regenerate vast areas for all species,
many of whom are endangered due to loss of habitat and being killed.
> >humans.. and re-re- posts spam.
> >That's dh@. The troll (applause M) who argues "consideration for lives".
>
> And people who claim to care about the animals oppose having
> consideration for their lives.
Consideration for lives =/= killing, supporting killing, defending killing....
> It's hard for me to feel wrong for
> suggesting you try to develop something that no one should have had to
> tell you you should develop, and that you are opposed to seeing anyone
> else develop.
Gobbledegook. It's really a delinquent evil vampire, and best plonked.
Mark
dh@ came crashing onto a support group and doesn't seem to realise that some
people like to help rather than take their frustrations out on others. Why
anyone would want to join in a conversation and make people feel like crap
at the end of it is beyond my puny internet-assembled armchair psychology.
Dutch seems to be a nice person. I'm surprised to hear that he also enjoys
making people feel like crap as well. So much for my perception.
FWIW the only meat I eat is fish because I can't empathise with a fish as
easily as I can empathise with other animals. Does this mean that animals
apart from fish have rights in my view? I'd say yes anything that can be
empathised with has rights. The problem with animal rights as I see it is
that it's a legal definition as well as a moral point of view. All the
empathising in the world can never grant them rights because they can never
be fully enforced. When we buy veggies animals are killed by the farmers
that grow them. If animals were given rights I would find it hard to send a
farmer to jail after his umpteenth animal rights violation because they just
can't be avoided sometimes. But that's what I would have to be prepared to
do if I was serious about legal rights for animals, and I don't think I
could. That leaves me with 'animals can't have legal rights'. Killing them
for meat fur and drug testing is a different thing altogether though and
should be stopped. They have a right not to be killed for those things in my
view. My heart really goes out to those animals used in vivisection. And to
cows. Those cows we see in fields at this time of year look contented enough
but I know there's a lot of misery behind every glass of milk, and my heart
goes out to them just as much sometimes. That's why I don't drink milk
either. Not many people feel much empathy for chickens because birds don't
have any expression on their faces. I can, and I can't help feeling that
it's no coincidence that chickens are probably the most abused animal.
That's why I don't eat eggs. I would if my granddad was still alive. He
always looked after his chooks. I used to like sitting with them in the
garden when my parents took me with them on our weekly visit. When my
granddad came out of the house he used to ask me what we'd been talking
about. He used to say that if a person doesn't strike up a conversation with
at least one chicken after sitting with half a dozen of them for a short
while, then there's got to be something wrong with him.
pearl
Never misunderestimate to charm and deceitfulness of the psycho-sociopath.
I'd post snippets of his inglorious posting history, if it weren't so damn nasty.
> FWIW the only meat I eat is fish because I can't empathise with a fish as
> easily as I can empathise with other animals.
Do keep a close eye on the research. Aside, the ocean's fished-out, and
many mammalian predators are starving to death. Here's a recent report:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/predators-starve-as-we-plunder-oceans-1671066.html
> Does this mean that animals
> apart from fish have rights in my view? I'd say yes anything that can be
> empathised with has rights. The problem with animal rights as I see it is
> that it's a legal definition as well as a moral point of view. All the
> empathising in the world can never grant them rights because they can never
> be fully enforced. When we buy veggies animals are killed by the farmers
> that grow them. If animals were given rights I would find it hard to send a
> farmer to jail after his umpteenth animal rights violation because they just
> can't be avoided sometimes. But that's what I would have to be prepared to
> do if I was serious about legal rights for animals, and I don't think I
> could. That leaves me with 'animals can't have legal rights'.
Non-killing horticultural 'system' which respects rights. Please see below.*
> Killing them
> for meat fur and drug testing is a different thing altogether though and
> should be stopped. They have a right not to be killed for those things in my
> view. My heart really goes out to those animals used in vivisection. And to
> cows. Those cows we see in fields at this time of year look contented enough
> but I know there's a lot of misery behind every glass of milk, and my heart
> goes out to them just as much sometimes. That's why I don't drink milk
> either. Not many people feel much empathy for chickens because birds don't
> have any expression on their faces. I can, and I can't help feeling that
> it's no coincidence that chickens are probably the most abused animal.
> That's why I don't eat eggs. I would if my granddad was still alive. He
> always looked after his chooks. I used to like sitting with them in the
> garden when my parents took me with them on our weekly visit. When my
> granddad came out of the house he used to ask me what we'd been talking
> about. He used to say that if a person doesn't strike up a conversation with
> at least one chicken after sitting with half a dozen of them for a short
> while, then there's got to be something wrong with him.
Well said! Worthy branch of the old tree, hope you don't mind me saying.
*
'SEVEN STOREYS OF ABUNDANCE; A VISIT TO ROBERT HART'S
FOREST GARDEN
Following the Permaculture Design Course run by 'Naturewise' in the Spring
1997, a group of graduates decided to visit what has been described as
possibly the only fully developed working Permaculture site in the UK,
Robert Hart's Forest Garden.
Situated at Wenlock Edge on the Welsh borders, Robert began the project
over thirty years ago with the intention of providing a healthy and therapuetic
environment for himself and his brother Lacon, born with severe learning
disabilities.
Starting as relatively conventional smallholders, Robert soon discovered that
maintaining large annual vegetable beds, rearing livestock and taking care of
an orchard were tasks beyond their strength. However, he also observed that
a small bed of perennial vegetables and herbs they had planted up was
looking after itself with little or no intervention. Furthermore, these plants
provided interesting and unusual additions to the diet, as well as seeming to
promote health and vigour in both body and mind.
Noting the maxim of Hippocrates to "make food your medicine and medicine
your food", Robert adopted a vegan, 90% raw food diet. He also began to
examine the interactions and relationships that take place between plants in
natural systems, particularly in woodland, the climax eco-system of a cool
temperate region such as the British Isles. This led him to evolve the concept
of the 'Forest Garden': Based on the observation that the natural forest can
be divided into distinct layers or 'storeys', he developed an existing small
orchard of apples and pears into an edible landscape consisting of seven
dimensions;
I) A 'canopy' layer consisting of the original mature fruit trees.
2) A 'low-tree' layer of smaller nut and fruit trees on dwarfing root stocks.
3) A 'shrub layer' of fruit bushes such as currants and berries.
4) A 'herbaceous layer' of perennial vegetables and herbs.
5) A 'ground cover' layer of edible plants that spread horizontally.
6) A 'rhizosphere' or 'underground' dimension of plants grown for
their roots and tubers.
7) A vertical 'layer' of vines and climbers.
[illustration -
The Forest Garden: A Seven Level Beneficial Guild
1. Canopy (large fruit and nut trees)
2. Low tree layer (dwarf fruit trees)
3. Shrub layer (currants and berries)
4. Herbaceous (comfreys, beets, herbs)
5. Rhizosphere (root vegetables)
6. Soil surface (ground cover, eg. strawberry, etc)
7. Vertical layer (climbers, vines) ]
Stepping into the Forest Garden is like entering another world. All around
is lushness and abundance, a sharp contrast to the dust bowl aridity of
the surrounding prairie farmed fields and farmlands. At first the sheer
profusion of growth is bewildering, like entering a wild wood. We're not
used to productive landscapes appearing so disorderly. But it doesn't
take long for the true harmony of nature's systems to reveal themselves,
and the realisation sinks in that in fact it is the Agribiz monocultures, with
their heavy machinery, genetic manipulation, erosion, high water inputs,
pesticides and fertilisers which are in a total state of maintained chaos.
Whereas hectares of land may produce bushel after bushel of but one crop,
genetically degraded and totally vulnerable to ever more virulent strains of
pest and disease without the dubious protection of massive chemical inputs,
just an eighth of an acre of a garden such as Robert's can output a
tremendous variety of yields. Whilst too early in the year for the apples,
plums and pears beginning to swell in the trees, we were surrounded by
gluts of black, red and whitecurrants, gooseberries, raspberries and
loganberries; as well as a profusion of saladings such as sorrel, lovage,
tree-onions, wild garlic, borage, lemon balm and many other herbs.
Foraging a meal for the nine of us was an extremely enjoyable task, not like
work at all. Robert, a gentle and erudite man, yet possessed of a great
clarity of purpose, joined us for our campfire feast. As we sat and chatted
into the evening he explained his motivations and hopes for the future. Of
his plans to expand the original Forest Garden, and his dream of a network
of such gardens covering not only Britain but the world, bringing an
abundance of natural food, and healing to both peoplekind and the planet.
He spoke of his philosophical inspiration by figures as diverse as John
Seymour, Ghandi, Kropotkin and Kagawa; of the antecedents of the
Forest Garden such as the 'home gardens' of Kerala, where most of the
land is covered with productive trees; and later sang us songs that he used
to share with his late brother Lacon, including those of murdered Chilean
land and human rights campaigner Victor Jara.
This was a magical evening, an illustration that perhaps the primary forces
within the Forest Garden are of spirituality and peace. Whilst being highly
productive of nuts, fruits, fresh perennial vegetables and medicinal herbs,
the most important yield of this place is the reminder that there is much
more to how we find sustenance as human beings than what we consume,
than looking at our sources of nourishment purely in terms of net tonnes
per hectare. The forest garden is an idea whose time has come.
"Obviously, few of us are in a position to restore the forests.. But tens of
millions of us have gardens, or access to open spaces such as industrial
wastelands, where trees can be planted. and if full advantage can be taken
of the potentialities that are available even in heavily built up areas, new
'city forests' can arise..." (Robert A.de J.Hart)
GRAHAM BURNETT
Taken from VOHAN News International, issue 2, available from
'Anandavan'
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:3d4q15tj1nkdbgkhl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:56:42 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>dh@ is a real sick puppy. He revels in brutality and killing. His
>>'argument'
>>here has been that raising "domestic animals" is justifiable by virtue of
>>the
>>idea that those animals wouldn't "get to experience life" had they not
>>been
>>bred for 'food'.
>
> Your dishonesty is showing. It's certainly true that they only
> experience life because they are raised for food, but the animals only
> benefit when they have decent lives of positive value, which many of
> them do. You have never known me to say it's all justifiable
> regardless of conditions, and you so dishonestly are suggesting.
That argument doesn't hold water. Animals that suffer under intolerable
conditions also "only experience life because they were bred for food".
Therefore that particular fact is a non-issue, it is not one of the criteria
we use to decide if raising them is justifiable. That's what we mean when we
say that the LoL is a circular argument.
>>Wildlife he disregards completely.
>
> That's a blatant lie.
No it is not. The LoL, which by the way you do not even present coherently,
contends that by raising many animals and killing them off for food we cause
MORE animals to exist and have enjoyment of life, which is judged to be a
net good. The fact is that livestock animals take resources that wildlife
could consume if left in the zero-sum game of nature.
[..]
> And people who claim to care about the animals oppose having
> consideration for their lives.
Stop using the phrase "having consideration for their lives" as if it meant
doing the animals some good, because as we both know you cannot say that.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:r35q15d9168mqkhb0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:46:32 +0100, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:03:17 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>snipped
>>>You're right Mark, he is not arguing in good faith. He insists for
>>>example
>>>that I reject his proposition because I am an Animal Rights Activist even
>>>though I have told him repeatedly that I support the raising of
>>>livestock,
>>>and the use of animals in medical research. His "proposition" fwiw, is a
>>>roughly hewn version of "the logic of the larder", a bit of circular
>>>sophism
>>>that has been floating around for centuries.
>>>
>>I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But how can you be an
>>Animal
>>Rights Activist and support the livestock industry at the same time? dh@
>>cross posted this thread to include alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. I don't
>>know why he did that. I don't know anything about animal rights.
>
> One of the first things to learn about it is that in regards to
> domestic animals it's a gross misnomer, since it wouldn't provide them
> with improved lives, longer lives, or any life at all.
That twisted bit of grade school logic is irrelevant to the debate, and
untrue.
Dutch
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:57:50 -0400, Buzzard
> <buz...@domain.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>> I'm pointing out things people don't like to think about, like the
>>> fact that people claiming to be strong atheists usually appear to be
>>> ashamed to admit they have the faith that's necessary in order for
>>> them to be one. That's one of my favorites :-)
>>
>>There is perhaps a counterintuitive reason why atheists tend
>>to deny that they have "faith".
>
> Yes, they want to pretend that their faith is somehow superior to
> that of other people by pretending it's more than what it is, which is
> simply faith that they put in a guess.
>
"Faith" in this context means "faith in the existence of a God". It is a
short form.
It is true that strong atheists have a firm belief that the belief in God is
misguided, and this could be seen as a form of "faith", but you won't get
many of them to admit it..
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:7m5q15pk9c7220r0e...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:37:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:08:41 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> So I point out to people who are in favor of the elimination of
>>>>> domestic animals, and who abuse the gross misnomer "animal rights"
>>>>> which is a dishonest way of obtaining a lot more contributions than if
>>>>> they were to use a more honest term for referring to their actual
>>>>> objective:
>>>>
>>>>PeTA doesn't hide the fact that they advocate the cessation of the meat
>>>>industry. Its plastered all over their web site and literature.
>>>>
>>>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>>>> of animal use." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>That's true, they contribute in_spite_of not supporting the ideas of
>>>>Ingrid
>>>>Newkirk but because PeTA promotes worthy anti-cruelty causes.
>>>
>>> It's because they are led to believe that PeTA means something it
>>> does not.
>>
>>Nope
>
> We both know that's a lie:
I know no such thing.
> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
> of animal use." - Dutch
That doesn't mean that they are unaware that PeTA promotes vegetarianism.
>>> Even if they learn that PeTA is a misnomer organization and
>>> not an AW organization it appears that plenty of them are fooled by
>>> the misnomer itself, which of course is the reason why eliminationists
>>> use it to begin with.
>>>
>>>>A good example
>>>>of this is political activist and comedian Bill Maher who serves on the
>>>>board of PeTA, is a good friend and admirer of Ingrid Newkirk, but who
>>>>is
>>>>a
>>>>non-vegetarian.
>>>
>>> That's sick
>>
>>It's not sick at all, there's nothing wrong with it.
>>
>>> but he's obviously only in it for the money.
>>
>>That's highly unlikely, but that doesn't matter to you.
>>
>>> He
>>> probably thinks they're a bunch of kooks,
>>
>>He thinks they do good for animals, so do I.
>
> They exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their goal
> to eliminate the very animals they so dishonestly are pretending they
> want to do good for.
That is childish logic, it is the crux of why you're seen as a fool. PeTA's
mandate is to see livestock and other domestic animal classes eliminated
completely, AND they want to alleviate the suffering of those that do exist.
They may have their flaws as an organization, but that basic mandate is NOT
inconsistent in the way you seem to think. You're just being an idiot.
>
>>> and has a lot more reasons
>>> to feel that way than I do. Or then again maybe he's like you now that
>>> you mention it, and PRETENDING to be a meat consumer hoping to win
>>> their trust by dishonestly pretending to be "one of them". I wonder if
>>> he would even oppose consideration for the lives of the animals he
>>> claims to eat like you do.
>>
>>"Consideration" aka the LoL is utter nonsense.
>>
>>>
>>>>> that the animals' lives should be given as much or more consideration
>>>>> than their deaths.
>>>>
>>>>You're talking nonsense,
>>>
>>> Only to those of you
>>
>>No
>
> LOL! Yes, only to those of you who oppose their existence.
No, I support their existence and oppose the LoL because it is cheap shabby
sophism.
>
>>> who are opposed to their existence to begin
>>> with. Anyone who's not retarded and not opposed to eating meat, would
>>> have no reason to oppose giving the animals' lives more consideration
>>> than their deaths.
>>>
>>>>you're trying to leverage off a silly position
>>>>taken by AR by concocting an even sillier one in opposition. The only
>>>>thing
>>>>about their lives that warrants "consideration" is the manner in which
>>>>we
>>>>treat them.
>>>>
>>>>The fact they are alive does not disqualify us from using them for food
>>>>and
>>>>the fact they are alive is not a reason TO use them for food, except
>>>>that
>>>>it
>>>>makes them taste good.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with their flavor and is a necessary aspect
>>> to consider in order to evaluate whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for
>>> humans to raise them for food, as I've pointed out countless times.
>>
>>Yet you can't tell my why.
>
> I've explained it's a necessary part of developing a realistic
> interpretation of the big picture, specifically what the animals we're
> discussing get out of the arrangement. You lied again/still.
You keep repeating that its necessary but you never explain why. You can't
and never will,
because it isn't.
>
>>>>> Up until recently "Dutch" and the rest of the
>>>>> misnomer advocates have been maniacally trying to oppose that
>>>>> suggestion the entire time.
>>>>
>>>>To "Mark", he means "ARA" by "misnomer advocates" and he knows that I am
>>>>not
>>>>one, I am an avowed meat lover. He knows it,
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie, since there's no way I could know it. Not
>>> only can I not know it, but I find it very hard to believe.
>>
>>You have no reason to disbelieve it.
>
> There's another lie. In fact the truth is that I have ONLY reason
> to disbelieve it. Being as familiar with you people and you in
> particular as I am, the fact that you say it is reason to disbelieve
> it.
You don't deserve to have people respond to you. You act like a troll.
>
>>>>he lies constantly.
>>>
>>> That's another lie, you can't present any examples of me lying
>>> about anything, and you never have been able to. In contrast to that,
>>> we have a clear example of you lying twice in the same paragraph!
>>
>>You lie when you say no arguments against the LoL have been presented.
>
> No good ones have.
That's not what you say, you say "You have never presented any arguments",
which is a lie.
> Your lies are certainly not only not good
> reasons, but they are not reasons at all.
Even if you disagree with them, they are still arguments. You've presented
arguments to support the LoL, I don't lie and deny it. They're nonsense, but
they are still arguments. Obviously you can't tell the difference between a
lie and the truth.
>>>>> So am I wrong for continuing to encourage
>>>>> it, or are they wrong for trying to discourage it? As yet "Dutch" has
>>>>> been unable to provide any good reason(s) why we should believe his
>>>>> anticonsideration for the animals' lives is superior to having
>>>>> consideration. He insists that it is ethically superior, but can't
>>>>> explain why anyone should believe that it is. Maybe you can get him to
>>>>> try and maybe you'll agree with him. You probably can't though. I've
>>>>> been trying for years, and the closest he "gets" is to dishonestly say
>>>>> it has already been done. That was one of the first dishonest tricks I
>>>>> noticed misnomer advocates trying to play in these ngs: To dishonestly
>>>>> say they've done something they never could do, and probably never
>>>>> will be able to do.
>>>>
>>>>The dishonest trick is your habit of ignoring and dismissing every
>>>>argument
>>>
>>> I dismiss the lame ones that seem dishonest
>>
>>And then dishonestly declare that no arguments have ever been made. You
>>don't say "I don't accept the arguments" which would be fair, instead you
>>choose to deliberately lie.
>
> You haven't given any reasons, litteraly. You may feel that you
> have, but your lies are not reasons, and since you have given no good
> reasons it is fair to say that you have given none.
You don't get to arbitrarily classify arguments you don't like as lies and
thus define them out of existence, that is lying and bad faith.
>
>>> and that you're
>>> completely unable to back up, which so far has turned out to be "all"
>>> of them though by "all" it only amounts to maybe two or three
>>> attempts, not even a dozen much less hundreds as you dishonestly tried
>>> to claim. VERY! dishonestly!!!
>>>
>>>>that is made to show why your "consideration" is meaningless nonsense,
>>>>then
>>>>LYING and asserting that no arguments have been made.
>>>
>>> No good arguments have ever been presented. Your only attempts
>>> afaik have been to dishonestly claim that taking the animals' lives
>>> into consideration is somehow a form of sophistry but you can't
>>> explain how it could be, and your "source" of that mysterious and
>>> unexplainable absurd sounding concept is an imaginary talking pig,
>>> dreamed up by one of the founders of the misnomer Herny "ar" Salt.
>>>
>>>>For example in the
>>>>last post I showed that your "consideration" does nothing whatsoever for
>>>>animals, or people,
>>>
>>> In contrast to that dishonesty it's what makes things like cage
>>> free eggs available,
>>
>>Show how.
>
> People have to decide they are willing to pay the extra money to
> contribute to life for cage free hens instead of caged hens.
All I need to do is compare the conditions, if I simply "consider their
lives" both groups of animals are alive. The LoL (basking in the glory of
granting lives to some of God's creatures) plays no part.
>
>>> and it gives people a more realistic
>>> interpretation of the big picture than it does to try to refuse taking
>>> the animals into consideration.
>>
>>How does the LoL do that?
>
> Because their lives are a very significant aspect of the
> situation, and especially of any evaluation of whether or not it's
> cruel TO THEM for people to raise them for food, as I've pointed out
> to you many many many many....times.
Saying it is significant is not an argument, WHY is it significant?
>
>>Just saying it is not good enough.
>>
>>>>and that it is essentially a tawdry little mind game you
>>>>play to make yourself feel good.
>>>
>>> Thinking things through can help people gain appreciation for the
>>> lives of positive value many animals experience because humans raise
>>> them for food.
>>
>>The fact that we end up eating them does not contribute to them having
>>better lives.
>
> That doesn't mean anything. At best you're just trying to draw
> attention away from the fact that they only experience life because
> they are raised for food.
So do the ones who are abused. If we consider that animals only experience
life because they are raised for food that gets us exactly NOWHERE.
>
>>..and other reasons too. Since that works against the
>>> objective to eliminate them--and only for that reason--people like
>>> yourself are opposed to seeing other people develop such appreciation.
>>
>>The LoL is not appreciation,
>
> That's another blatant lie, since it certainly is to those who can
> appreciate the fact that millions of animals experience decent lives
> of positive value because humans raise them for food.
>
>>it's self-serving mind games,
>
> It's a very significant aspect of the situation that misnomer
> advocates are opposed to seeing taken into consideration because it
> works against what they want to accomplish.
Strawman, classic. You assigning a position to me I do not hold in order to
avoid dealing with my actual arguments.
> Mark, notice I'm consistently doing what I said I do: Pointing out
> facts that people hate to see taken into consideration.
You're assigning importance to facts which have no importance.
>
>>> As I continue to point out: People who really are in favor of decent
>>> AW as you very poorly and dishonestly pretend to be, would have no
>>> reason at all to be opposed to giving the animals' lives as much or
>>> more consideration than their deaths.
>>
>>I give neither their lives nor their deaths the slightest consideration.
>
> The purity of your selfishness prevents it, but that's really not
> something to brag about.
Those things are simply facts of life, there is no reason to consider them.
You have never provided any reason to consider them, you only repeat endless
that it is necessary, but of course are unable to explain why, because it
isn't.
>>There is no reason whatsoever to do so. What is worthy of consideration is
>>how they are treated during their lives, including during the act of
>>slaughtering them. ARAs are foolish to make a fuss about their deaths,
>>you're just feeding that same folly with the LoL.
...whoooosh....
>>
>>
>>>>That is a valid assessment, and you have no
>>>>answer for it except to utter empty denials.
>>>
>>> What I point out is an aspect of the situation you people hate
>>
>>There is no meaning to the aspect you point out, except in your addled
>>mind.
>
> That's a lie, since their lives have significant meaning to the
> billons of animals we're dicussing, and also to some humans.
Their "lives" have no meaning in the context of this discussion, the meaning
the LoL assigns to those lives is illegitimate.
Whether their lives have meaning "to them" is very debatable, but
irrelevant.
All we control is how we treat them, and that is how we are judged, not on
how many chickens "got to experience life" because we eat McNuggets.
Dutch
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:56:42 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>"Dutch" is another 'interesting' case. Admitted: self-deluded, enjoys
>>making
>>others feel bad. Evasive proven liar. After nine years of trying to find
>>some
>>justification or support for his 'cause' (he likes the taste, and fat is
>>addictive),
>>and failing miserably at every turn, ah! recently he's just given up,
>>claiming
>>that no justification is necessary. There ya go - problem sor.. doesn't
>>exist.
>>
>>
>>It's sometimes a laugh a minute in a.a.e.v, I can tell you. HTH. All the
>>best.
>>
>>
>>"pearl"
>
> dh@ came crashing onto a support group and doesn't seem to realise that
> some
> people like to help rather than take their frustrations out on others. Why
> anyone would want to join in a conversation and make people feel like crap
> at the end of it is beyond my puny internet-assembled armchair psychology.
> Dutch seems to be a nice person. I'm surprised to hear that he also enjoys
> making people feel like crap as well. So much for my perception.
"pearl" can be persuasive and charming if she thinks you can be persuaded.
I would advise you strongly to always rely on your own perception rather
than accept what others say about people. This is generally called
"spreading gossip" and it is the most insidious form of black magic.
Imagine a student who does poorly in a class and blames the teacher. This
student feels a string resentment towards this teacher and begins to spread