"Michael Saunby" <msaunby@despammed.com> wrote in message news:c0m00o$avq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael Saunby wrote:

It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.

He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
person, being concieved.

You cannot prevent something that doesn't already
exist from doing or being something, stupid, but being
an animal farmer you want people to believe livestock
owe their lives to your stinking industry,

so you'll use
any kind of sophistry you can get your dirty hands on
to keep that industry going.

"When did you last see a wild cow, or a wild sheep,
or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their
very existence to domestication."
Michael Saunby http://tinyurl.com/yumz5

You're an ugly man in an ugly business peddling an
ugly sophism, but those who know better see right
through it.

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael Saunby wrote:


...


It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.

He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
person, being concieved. Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
creature cannot be harmed.

Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
entity in its own right, perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain life.
[...]

"Jonathan Gonad" <jongonad@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em@4ax.com...
The animals don't gain anything from living.

Here we go! Perhaps posting the charter was timely!

Can I suggest that no one reply to this troll and if you do then remove all
cross groups. Damn - broke my own rule.

If I had a cynical mind I would
guess our absent father wants to kill his baby group and has unleashed the
kraken on us.

We're gonna get deluged!

T.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:55:53 -0000, "Tony" <Rodney@10uk.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Gonad" <jongonad@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em@4ax.com...
The animals don't gain anything from living.

Here we go! Perhaps posting the charter was timely!

Can I suggest that no one reply to this troll and if you do then remove
all
cross groups. Damn - broke my own rule.

As anyone can see, these "Animal Rights" people want to promote
the impression that all farm animals suffer horrible lives, and gain
nothing
from living. That is a lie. They also want to promote the thought that
billions of animals are simply "killed" for food, without people giving
any
thought to the fact that many of them have decent lives only because
they are raised to be eaten. It's because no one points out their false
impressions that they are able to promote them successfully. Anyone
who is in favor of promoting decent lives for farm animals should be
*very!!!* opposed to "AR", and maybe should say something about it.

If I had a cynical mind I would
guess our absent father wants to kill his baby group and has unleashed
the
kraken on us.

We're gonna get deluged!

T.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:47:50 -0000, "ipse dixit" <nospam@email.com> wrote:


"Michael Saunby" <msaunby@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:c0m00o$avq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael Saunby wrote:

It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.

He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal,
or
person, being concieved.

You cannot prevent something that doesn't already
exist from doing or being something, stupid, but being
an animal farmer you want people to believe livestock
owe their lives to your stinking industry,

That's because they do....billions of them do. How many
owe their lives to veg*ns? None. Veg*ns are only responsible
for the deaths of animals, not for their lives.

so you'll use
any kind of sophistry you can get your dirty hands on
to keep that industry going.

"When did you last see a wild cow, or a wild sheep,
or even a wild dog or cat? These species owe their
very existence to domestication."
Michael Saunby http://tinyurl.com/yumz5

You're an ugly man in an ugly business peddling an
ugly sophism, but those who know better see right
through it.

You can't provide examples of any wild populations of
animals that "ARAs" created from domestic animals, though
"ARAs" sometimes dishonestly try to persuade people to
believe that "AR" would create them.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:21:35 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
msaunby@despammed.com> wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael Saunby wrote:


...


It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.

He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
person, being concieved. Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
creature cannot be harmed.

Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
entity in its own right, perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain
life.
[...]

Details like that are far beyond what this "discussion" is ever likely
to
come to with many people, it appears. These "ARAs" are desperate to
maintain the idea that no farm animals benefit from farming, in order to
put incredible restrictions on our thinking. According to their argument
no farm animals can even benefit more than other farm animals, because
none of them can benefit at all. Those who have a horrible life, benefit
no more or less than those who have a good one. Those who have a
long life, benefit no more or less than those who have a short one. Those
who have a decent life and easy death, benefit no more or less than
wildlife who have a terrible life and die a slow and painful death like
some animals in crop fields. If people begin to realise that some farm
animals benefit from farming, then "ARAs" would not have the advantage
of deceptively promoting the impression that eliminating all farm animals
would be the ethically best course of action. Instead people might decide
that providing them with decent lives would be the best way to go instead,
and that's the last thing that "ARAs" want to see happen.

--
http://www.needhim.org/
.
dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3n4v2017v51eqagp6pv4mlie7brjjh0rql@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:21:35 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
msaunby@despammed.com> wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael Saunby wrote:


...


It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.

He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal,
or
person, being concieved. Until they are conceived they cannot be
harmed.
Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
creature cannot be harmed.

Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
entity in its own right, perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain
life.
[...]

Details like that are far beyond what this "discussion" is ever
likely
to
come to with many people, it appears. These "ARAs" are desperate to
maintain the idea that no farm animals benefit from farming, in order to
put incredible restrictions on our thinking. According to their argument
no farm animals can even benefit more than other farm animals, because
none of them can benefit at all. Those who have a horrible life, benefit
no more or less than those who have a good one. Those who have a
long life, benefit no more or less than those who have a short one.
Those
who have a decent life and easy death, benefit no more or less than
wildlife who have a terrible life and die a slow and painful death like
some animals in crop fields. If people begin to realise that some farm
animals benefit from farming, then "ARAs" would not have the advantage
of deceptively promoting the impression that eliminating all farm
animals
would be the ethically best course of action. Instead people might
decide
that providing them with decent lives would be the best way to go
instead,
and that's the last thing that "ARAs" want to see happen.



Well said.......... I think.

"Tony" <Rodney@10uk.net> wrote in message
news:c0ljod$18gf5p$1@ID-156344.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Jonathan Gonad" <jongonad@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em@4ax.com...
The animals don't gain anything from living.

Here we go! Perhaps posting the charter was timely!

Can I suggest that no one reply to this troll and if you do then remove
all
cross groups. Damn - broke my own rule. If I had a cynical mind I would
guess our absent father wants to kill his baby group and has unleashed the
kraken on us.

We're gonna get deluged!

Quickly killfile this guy. I was wondering why my killfile starting
deleting posts on this group. He has been a true pain on misc.rural for a
few years. His crossposting will quickly bring in many others who do not
check the "newsgroups" header on the return.

As an example, over half the posts to misc.rural are deleted because they
come from JB or are crossposts.

From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: <LzrXb.3676$tL3.811@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:57:31 GMT



The animals don't gain anything from living.