A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dogs - general
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Classic "ar" idiocy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 26th 06, 05:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
__________________________________________________ _______
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
__________________________________________________ _______
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm. Pens were destroyed, and offices, a boat and a crane
were wrecked. Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild, and thousands of dead fish are being washed up
along the west coast of Scotland. The halibut died from starvation or
getting caught in seaweed. They were also being eaten by herring
gulls and otters.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Such stupid idiots, going out of their way to have their stupid
idiotic influence on humans and other animals, and it's always
bad...but then that's what we expect from such stupid idiots.
To see the rest of the list and pick your own favorite acts of
"ar" stupidity, go to:

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm

With all that going on there really should be some sort of
annual "ar" stupidest idiots awards, or something like that.
  #2  
Old December 26th 06, 06:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
Geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":

Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
_________________________________________________ ________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.


That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

Pens were destroyed,


Crates!

and offices,


Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat


£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.


Hoist!

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,


Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people, who obviously know, or
care nothing about the fish or they would not have allowed seriously
sick, and diseased fish in the river in the first place, even if they
are in crates!

and thousands of dead fish are being washed up
along the west coast of Scotland.


They were dead anyway, in the crates! Thousands swam away.

The halibut died from starvation or
getting caught in seaweed.


Dead anyway!

They were also being eaten by herring
gulls and otters.


That's what they do!

Don't believe all the bullshit, factory farmers tell you.
***************************






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
  #3  
Old December 27th 06, 05:52 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":

Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.


That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.


If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,


Crates!

and offices,


Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat


£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.


Hoist!


So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,


Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,


They know more about their fish than you ever will.

who obviously know, or
care nothing about the fish or they would not have allowed seriously
sick, and diseased fish in the river in the first place, even if they
are in crates!


Why did your terrorist heros release diseased fish into a river?

and thousands of dead fish are being washed up
along the west coast of Scotland.


They were dead anyway, in the crates! Thousands swam away.

The halibut died from starvation or
getting caught in seaweed.


Dead anyway!

They were also being eaten by herring
gulls and otters.


That's what they do!


All your heros did was make things worse for humans and
other animals, which is all they do, ever.

Don't believe all the bullshit, factory farmers tell you.
***************************


I believe what I believe after finding out what people want
me to believe. From my experience in ngs, "ar"/veg*n type
people are the most dishonest sort of people you can find,
and have the most twisted views of reality. Farmers in contrast
HAVE to deal with reality, and if they had the bizarre twisted
views that "aras" have they couldn't keep their animals alive.
This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways. Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable
....the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.
  #4  
Old December 28th 06, 04:42 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
Rupert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Classic "ar" idiocy


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":

Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.


That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.


If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,


Crates!

and offices,


Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat


£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.


Hoist!


So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism? Why shouldn't he say something
about it? You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,


Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,


They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?

who obviously know, or
care nothing about the fish or they would not have allowed seriously
sick, and diseased fish in the river in the first place, even if they
are in crates!


Why did your terrorist heros release diseased fish into a river?


Perhaps you should ask them.

and thousands of dead fish are being washed up
along the west coast of Scotland.


They were dead anyway, in the crates! Thousands swam away.

The halibut died from starvation or
getting caught in seaweed.


Dead anyway!

They were also being eaten by herring
gulls and otters.


That's what they do!


All your heros did was make things worse for humans and
other animals, which is all they do, ever.


I will leave the merits of this particular action for others to debate.
There have been some illegal actions which have benefitted nonhumans,
including rescues, and actions which have uncovered evidence which has
led to the shutting down of research laboratories.

Don't believe all the bullshit, factory farmers tell you.
***************************


I believe what I believe after finding out what people want
me to believe. From my experience in ngs, "ar"/veg*n type
people are the most dishonest sort of people you can find,
and have the most twisted views of reality.


Would you like to give some examples of this?

Farmers in contrast
HAVE to deal with reality, and if they had the bizarre twisted
views that "aras" have they couldn't keep their animals alive.


If they had an AR outlook they wouldn't be exploiting animals in the
first place.

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.


Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable


Nonsense.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed. I've seen footage of fur farms and I know
what the animals suffer.

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.


No, this is not always the case even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.

  #5  
Old December 28th 06, 10:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.


If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!


So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?


Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?


About what?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?


For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have. For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,


They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?


Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".

.. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.


Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.


They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable


Nonsense.


There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.


There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.

I've seen footage of fur farms


Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.

and I know what the animals suffer.


Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.


No, this is not always the case


It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody is enough waste
and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of
good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do
any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!

even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.


The less violent are encouraged to write support letters
to terrorists in prison, and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.
  #6  
Old December 29th 06, 12:58 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
Rupert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Classic "ar" idiocy


[email protected] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!

So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?


Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.


That's a fairly broad definition. So every act of mugging is an act of
terrorism. I think you need to work on that definition a bit. Anyway,
the next question is what counts as a violent act, and what about
actions where the intention is to help animals, rather than to
manipulate others?

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?


About what?


You said "why are you saying anything about it?" What were *you*
referring to?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?


For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have.


That might be a reason to refuse to accept his claim, it's not a reason
to ask why he made it in the first place.

For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to say an act of property damage is somewhat
less bad if the value of the property damaged is less?

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,

They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?


Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".


I see. Well, could you please help poor little bewildered me out and
explain exactly how you came by information about how much he knows or
ever will know about fish. Perhaps you could also discuss your level of
insight into how much the fishery owners know about fish. Do you know
anything about the industry?

. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.


Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.


They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.


They are not my heroes. The additional point needs to be taken into
account that the farmed fish were spared additional suffering. You may
or may not be right about wild fish being harmed, as far as I am aware
you are not a marine biologist, and you don't know the nature of the
disease the fish were suffering from and how widespread it was.


Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable


Nonsense.


There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.


I don't have to imagine. I've seen footage. You are the one who has the
twisted view of reality.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.


There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.


Have you ever heard of evidence and argument? It tends to be more
convincing than just assertion. Please tell me everything you know
about fur farms, O Enlightened One.

I've seen footage of fur farms


Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.


That's a totally irrational fantasy based on your prejudices, and in
any case no matter how twisted and dishonest people are, the camera
doesn't lie. The things I saw really happened.

and I know what the animals suffer.


Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.


Yes, okay, the occasional farmed animal has a decent life of positive
value. And your point is?

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.


No, this is not always the case


It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody


On the animal exploiters. That's the point.

is enough waste
and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of
good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do
any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!


See my earlier point about evidence and argument as opposed to bare
assertion.

even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.


The less violent are encouraged to write support letters
to terrorists in prison,


And?

and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.


Yes, well, obviously people have the right to know what they're funding.

  #7  
Old January 2nd 07, 07:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Classic "ar" idiocy


Only David Harrison's blindness is apparent; dh is one nasty indiv.
spends 24/7 here. Way to go, davy.

[email protected] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!

So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?


Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?


About what?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?


For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have. For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,

They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?


Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".

. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.


Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.


They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable


Nonsense.


There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.


There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.

I've seen footage of fur farms


Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.

and I know what the animals suffer.


Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.


No, this is not always the case


It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody is enough waste
and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of
good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do
any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!

even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.


The less violent are encouraged to write support letters
to terrorists in prison, and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.


  #8  
Old January 2nd 07, 08:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

On 28 Dec 2006 16:58:43 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!

So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?


Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.


That's a fairly broad definition. So every act of mugging is an act of
terrorism. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.


Since you're the one who's trying to make "ar" terrorism seem
okay, why don't you provide a definition that makes it okay instead
of pretending some interest in my interpretation. Good luck.

Anyway, the next question is what counts as a violent act,


Go ahead and try to justify it that way too if you think you can.

and what about
actions where the intention is to help animals,


In any rare situation where "ar" terrorism might possibly have
been of some benefit to an animal instead of making its particular
life worse than it had been, we only have reason to believe the
stolen animal would be replace by another, and any experiments
would have to be repeated causing as always MORE suffering,
not less.

rather than to manipulate others?


We have yet to see any example(s) of that, so we have
nothing to consider.

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?


About what?


You said "why are you saying anything about it?" What were *you*
referring to?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?


For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have.


That might be a reason to refuse to accept his claim, it's not a reason
to ask why he made it in the first place.


I'd like to see him explain why...LOL...especially if he's honest
about it.

For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to say an act of property damage is somewhat
less bad if the value of the property damaged is less?


Certainly not to the extent that it would make it okay, *IF!* it
made it any less bad at all. But we have no reason to believe
it makes it any less bad anyway, so as usual/always you provide
nothing to consider.

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,

They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?


Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".


I see. Well, could you please help poor little bewildered me out and
explain exactly how you came by information about how much he knows or
ever will know about fish.


I consider him ignorant until proven educated. You too.

Perhaps you could also discuss your level of
insight into how much the fishery owners know about fish.


They have to know about fish in order to be successful. Duh.

Do you know anything about the industry?


Nothing to speak of. Neither do you if you're not aware that
fishery owners have to know about fish in order to be successful.

. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.

Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.


They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.


They are not my heroes.


Doubtful.

The additional point needs to be taken into
account that the farmed fish were spared additional suffering.


How?

You may
or may not be right about wild fish being harmed, as far as I am aware
you are not a marine biologist, and you don't know the nature of the
disease the fish were suffering from and how widespread it was.


LOL. So we should think it's okay for "ar" terrorists to release
other people's diseased fish into rivers and streams whenever they
want to simply because we don't know how MUCH damage it will
do to wild fish? I can't go along with that at all. So far it's all bad,
so far all they do is make things worse (because that's all they do).

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable

Nonsense.


There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.


I don't have to imagine. I've seen footage. You are the one who has the
twisted view of reality.


You have given, and are capable of giving, NO reason to believe
that animals in fur farms are alive and comfortable. There is no reason
why they shouldn't be, and no reason to believe they aren't.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.


There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.


Have you ever heard of evidence and argument? It tends to be more
convincing than just assertion. Please tell me everything you know
about fur farms, O Enlightened One.


On fur farms they aren't terrified, fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot, getting
poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc... like they are after
your "ar" terrorists get finished having their influence on them.

I've seen footage of fur farms


Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.


That's a totally irrational fantasy based on your prejudices, and in
any case no matter how twisted and dishonest people are, the camera
doesn't lie. The things I saw really happened.


You have said anything a person even COULD consider yet,
and if you ever do it will be the worst situation(s) that your "ar"
propagandists can come up with.

and I know what the animals suffer.


Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.


Yes, okay, the occasional farmed animal has a decent life of positive
value.


Billions of them do, not just an occasional animal.

And your point is?


That we have no reason to think a life of positive value
isn't as good or better than no life at all.

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.

No, this is not always the case


It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody


On the animal exploiters. That's the point.


They force it on everyone, to the disadvantage of
EVERYONE! Not just for the researchers who make life
better for people and animals who get sick and injured,
but for the people and animals who get sick and injured
TOO!!!

is enough waste
and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of
good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do
any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!


See my earlier point about evidence and argument as opposed to bare
assertion.


The argument is that we have absolutely no evidence that
"ar" terrorism has ever done any good at all, but only evidence
that it has done harm and made things worse.

even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.


The less violent are encouraged to write support letters
to terrorists in prison,


And?


That makes the "part" of "ar" that supports terrorism MUCH
larger. You are included in the part that supports it of course.

and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.


Yes, well, obviously people have the right to know what they're funding.


Yes! I everyone knew what they were really paying for, I like
to think your "ar" organizations would be in terrible shape, since
I'd like to believe there is more ignorance than true idiocy involved
with "ar" groups raking in millions of $$$ every year.
  #9  
Old January 3rd 07, 05:45 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
Rupert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Classic "ar" idiocy


[email protected] wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 16:58:43 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!

So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?

Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.


That's a fairly broad definition. So every act of mugging is an act of
terrorism. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.


Since you're the one who's trying to make "ar" terrorism seem
okay, why don't you provide a definition that makes it okay instead
of pretending some interest in my interpretation. Good luck.


No, I am not. You are the one who brought up the subject of terrorism,
so it is your responsibility to define the term.

Anyway, the next question is what counts as a violent act,


Go ahead and try to justify it that way too if you think you can.

and what about
actions where the intention is to help animals,


In any rare situation where "ar" terrorism might possibly have
been of some benefit to an animal instead of making its particular
life worse than it had been, we only have reason to believe the
stolen animal would be replace by another, and any experiments
would have to be repeated causing as always MORE suffering,
not less.


There are some exceptions to this, such as rescues which will not be
noticed, and actions which are successful in getting research
laboratories closed down. In any event, it was not my intention to
defend any particular action, I was simply pointing out that your
attempt to define terrorism by means of intentions might fail to catch
a few cases you would prefer to be included under "terrorism".

rather than to manipulate others?


We have yet to see any example(s) of that, so we have
nothing to consider.


Obviously false.

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?

About what?


You said "why are you saying anything about it?" What were *you*
referring to?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?

For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have.


That might be a reason to refuse to accept his claim, it's not a reason
to ask why he made it in the first place.


I'd like to see him explain why...LOL...especially if he's honest
about it.


Because you made a claim that he disagreed with, and he wanted to set
the record straight?

For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to say an act of property damage is somewhat
less bad if the value of the property damaged is less?


Certainly not to the extent that it would make it okay, *IF!* it
made it any less bad at all. But we have no reason to believe
it makes it any less bad anyway, so as usual/always you provide
nothing to consider.


So your short answer is "No", but you don't feel the need to provide an
argument.

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,

They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?

Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".


I see. Well, could you please help poor little bewildered me out and
explain exactly how you came by information about how much he knows or
ever will know about fish.


I consider him ignorant until proven educated. You too.


May I take this as an admission that you don't know?

Perhaps you could also discuss your level of
insight into how much the fishery owners know about fish.


They have to know about fish in order to be successful. Duh.


Some forms of knowledge about fish would be relevant to their success,
others wouldn't. You don't know which because you yourself know next to
nothing about fish.

Do you know anything about the industry?


Nothing to speak of. Neither do you if you're not aware that
fishery owners have to know about fish in order to be successful.

. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.

Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.

They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.


They are not my heroes.


Doubtful.


Would you care to provide some reason for doubting my word on the
matter?

The additional point needs to be taken into
account that the farmed fish were spared additional suffering.


How?


They would have suffered as a result of further confinement.

You may
or may not be right about wild fish being harmed, as far as I am aware
you are not a marine biologist, and you don't know the nature of the
disease the fish were suffering from and how widespread it was.


LOL. So we should think it's okay for "ar" terrorists to release
other people's diseased fish into rivers and streams whenever they
want to simply because we don't know how MUCH damage it will
do to wild fish?


Obviously that bears not the slightest resemblance to what I said.

I can't go along with that at all. So far it's all bad,
so far all they do is make things worse (because that's all they do).


You have not demonstrated this, and by your own admission you lack
expert knowledge on the subject.

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable

Nonsense.

There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.


I don't have to imagine. I've seen footage. You are the one who has the
twisted view of reality.


You have given, and are capable of giving, NO reason to believe
that animals in fur farms are alive and comfortable.


I think you're missing a "not".

There is no reason
why they shouldn't be, and no reason to believe they aren't.


Yes there is, there is plenty of evidence that proves otherwise, as I
said, and you could find it yourself if you were inclined.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.

There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.


Have you ever heard of evidence and argument? It tends to be more
convincing than just assertion. Please tell me everything you know
about fur farms, O Enlightened One.


On fur farms they aren't terrified, fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot, getting
poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc... like they are after
your "ar" terrorists get finished having their influence on them.


On fur farms they are confined in such narrow spaces that they go
insane.

I've seen footage of fur farms

Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.


That's a totally irrational fantasy based on your prejudices, and in
any case no matter how twisted and dishonest people are, the camera
doesn't lie. The things I saw really happened.


You have said anything a person even COULD consider yet,
and if you ever do it will be the worst situation(s) that your "ar"
propagandists can come up with.


As I say, I have seen video footage of appalling suffering in fur
farms. You have absolutely no reason to think otherwise or any rational
ground to dismiss it as "propaganda". Your bizarre prejudices lead you
to characterize the people who took the footage as twisted, rather than
the people who inflict such suffering on innocent animals.

and I know what the animals suffer.

Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.


Yes, okay, the occasional farmed animal has a decent life of positive
value.


Billions of them do, not just an occasional animal.


Argue this point, please.

And your point is?


That we have no reason to think a life of positive value
isn't as good or better than no life at all.


Yes, but we've been through this countless times before. We don't think
that this argument justifies breeding humans and prematurely taking
their lives, so unless you wish to argue with that, that shows that by
itself the argument is insufficient. If you think some of the
distinguishing characteristics of nonhumans do justify us doing that to
them, then you've got to argue the point.

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.

No, this is not always the case

It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody


On the animal exploiters. That's the point.


They force it on everyone, to the disadvantage of
EVERYONE! Not just for the researchers who make life
better for people and animals who get sick and injured,
but for the people and animals who get sick and injured
TOO!!!


Er, no, not unless all research on animals benefits humans. There was
an instance of video footage of research into head injuries in primates
being illegally obtained that eventually led to the laboratory being
shut down. If you think this research was likely to be useful to
someone, you've got to argue the point.

is enough waste
and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of
good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do
any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!


See my earlier point about evidence and argument as opposed to bare
assertion.


The argument is that we have absolutely no evidence that
"ar" terrorism has ever done any good at all,


I can't argue about that until you provide a definition of terrorism.
There are plenty of instances of illegal actions doing good, as any
sensible person can see.

but only evidence
that it has done harm and made things worse.


There's not much evidence of harm beyond financial loss to people who
make their living exploiting animals, and damage to the public image of
the animal rights movement (which you presumably wouldn't regard as a
bad thing). I agree with you, groups like the Animal Liberation Front
probably do ultimately do more harm than good, which is not to say they
do no good at all. Groups that actually resort to property damage and
violence are a pretty small segment of the movement, you know.

even if we restrict our attention to
those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of
the animal rights movement as a whole.

The less violent are encouraged to write support letters
to terrorists in prison,


And?


That makes the "part" of "ar" that supports terrorism MUCH
larger.


I'm still waiting for a definition of terrorism, and then maybe I can
look forward to an explanation of what counts as supporting terrorism
and why doing that is bad.

You are included in the part that supports it of course.


Well, it's difficult to come up with a response to this without
degenerating into farce, since you obviously have no knowledge
whatsoever of anything I do. But I'll say it anyway: please specify
what I do that counts as supporting terrorism.

and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.


Yes, well, obviously people have the right to know what they're funding.


Yes! I everyone knew what they were really paying for, I like
to think your "ar" organizations would be in terrible shape, since
I'd like to believe there is more ignorance than true idiocy involved
with "ar" groups raking in millions of $$$ every year.


Well, you have one instance of one organization that calls itself
animal rights giving a donation, insignificant in comparison with its
total budget, to another organization that has been responsible for
some criminal activity. I don't think you can really conclude from this
that widespread public knowledge of the truth would bring all animal
rights organizations to their knees. These incidents are fairly widely
publicized anyway, I would imagine quite a lot of people do know about
them. You're attempting to characterize the entire animal rights
movement by means of a fringe segment of it, and even with regard to
the people you're discussing you're not making particularly cogent
arguments. Just for the record, I think a lot of the tactics of the ALF
are unjustified.

  #10  
Old January 4th 07, 08:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.dogs.misc,alt.sci.sociology,alt.stupidity
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Classic "ar" idiocy

On 2 Jan 2007 21:45:27 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 16:58:43 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or
lack of mentality--of "aras":
Ż
Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:
________________________________________________ _________
September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland: ALF extremists released
thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage
at a fish farm.

That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on
behalf of the fishery.

If they get anything out of it, then good.

Pens were destroyed,

Crates!

and offices,

Sheds, in very bad condition.

a boat

£50 worth!

and a crane
were wrecked.

Hoist!

So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff
as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the
stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you
actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to
wreck cranes and offices?


What's your definition of terrorism?

Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.


That's a fairly broad definition. So every act of mugging is an act of
terrorism. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.


Since you're the one who's trying to make "ar" terrorism seem
okay, why don't you provide a definition that makes it okay instead
of pretending some interest in my interpretation. Good luck.


No, I am not.


LOL. Loss by forfeit.

You are the one who brought up the subject of terrorism,
so it is your responsibility to define the term.

Anyway, the next question is what counts as a violent act,


Go ahead and try to justify it that way too if you think you can.

and what about
actions where the intention is to help animals,


In any rare situation where "ar" terrorism might possibly have
been of some benefit to an animal instead of making its particular
life worse than it had been, we only have reason to believe the
stolen animal would be replace by another, and any experiments
would have to be repeated causing as always MORE suffering,
not less.


There are some exceptions to this, such as rescues which will not be
noticed,


We have noticed that the animals they "rescue" often end up
terrified and suffering worse deaths, plus they die sooner.

and actions which are successful in getting research
laboratories closed down.


There's nothing good about that.

In any event, it was not my intention to
defend any particular action,


You apparently had hoped to but couldn't pull it off, because
as we've noticed their actions are always bad.

I was simply pointing out that your
attempt to define terrorism by means of intentions might fail to catch
a few cases you would prefer to be included under "terrorism".


I'll consider any actions to be terrorism that I consider to be
terrorist actions.

rather than to manipulate others?


We have yet to see any example(s) of that, so we have
nothing to consider.


Obviously false.


LOL!!! The fact that we have no example(s) at all proves
me right. The fact that you can provide no example(s) proves
me right that we have none. Your amusingly absurd denial is
just a desperate reaction to your cognitive dissonance, caused
by presentation of information that conflicts with what you want
to believe.

Why shouldn't he say something
about it?

About what?


You said "why are you saying anything about it?" What were *you*
referring to?

You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a
claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?

For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I
certainly don't have.

That might be a reason to refuse to accept his claim, it's not a reason
to ask why he made it in the first place.


I'd like to see him explain why...LOL...especially if he's honest
about it.


Because you made a claim that he disagreed with, and he wanted to set
the record straight?


It was because he wanted to make the terrorist actions seem less
contemptible by the lame trick of criticising the report of the terrorism,
and I would find it very amusing if he--or you--were honest enough
to admit that. Neither of you are of course, but think how amusing
it would be if you were...LOL...it would be great :-)

For another he would need to explain
what makes it any better either way, before I even could
think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what
he wrote.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to say an act of property damage is somewhat
less bad if the value of the property damaged is less?


Certainly not to the extent that it would make it okay, *IF!* it
made it any less bad at all. But we have no reason to believe
it makes it any less bad anyway, so as usual/always you provide
nothing to consider.


So your short answer is "No", but you don't feel the need to provide an
argument.


I didn't feel the need since you're not likely to agree anyway, but
since you mentioned it I'll point out that a few thousand dollars of
damage to one business, is often harder on that business and/or
its employees than much more expensive damage would be to
some others. If you can grasp that much, then you should have
some understanding of that particular argument against your
suggestion.

Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could
survive in the wild,

Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,

They know more about their fish than you ever will.


How do you know?

Some things are very obvious, but even those are
often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".


I see. Well, could you please help poor little bewildered me out and
explain exactly how you came by information about how much he knows or
ever will know about fish.


I consider him ignorant until proven educated. You too.


May I take this as an admission that you don't know?


I've made an educated guess, educated by your and his "arguments".

Perhaps you could also discuss your level of
insight into how much the fishery owners know about fish.


They have to know about fish in order to be successful. Duh.


Some forms of knowledge about fish would be relevant to their success,
others wouldn't. You don't know which because you yourself know next to
nothing about fish.


You have certainly been no source of useful information yourself.

Do you know anything about the industry?


Nothing to speak of. Neither do you if you're not aware that
fishery owners have to know about fish in order to be successful.

. . .

This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept
alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them
they died by the thousands in nasty ways.

Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the
action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to
see some evidence for yours.

They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen
them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many
more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros
didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.


They are not my heroes.


Doubtful.


Would you care to provide some reason for doubting my word on the
matter?


You consider them to be your front line "soldiers", because they
"fight" for what you believe in. You can deny it as you defend them
and I'll consider that to be expected dishonesty, the blatancy of
which is both absurd and amusing.

The additional point needs to be taken into
account that the farmed fish were spared additional suffering.


How?


They would have suffered as a result of further confinement.


We have no reason to believe that fish who have known nothing
but confinement, suffer from being confined. So far you still have
nothing on your side at all.

You may
or may not be right about wild fish being harmed, as far as I am aware
you are not a marine biologist, and you don't know the nature of the
disease the fish were suffering from and how widespread it was.


LOL. So we should think it's okay for "ar" terrorists to release
other people's diseased fish into rivers and streams whenever they
want to simply because we don't know how MUCH damage it will
do to wild fish?


Obviously that bears not the slightest resemblance to what I said.


You were just floundering in desperation anyway, trying to find
some way to make it look like "ar" terrorism is not contemptible.
As yet though, you have come nowhere close to explaining why
there's anything good about "ar" terrorists releasing diseased fish
into the wild.

I can't go along with that at all. So far it's all bad,
so far all they do is make things worse (because that's all they do).


You have not demonstrated this,


I've given some examples of why it's bad, and neither of us has
been able to give any example(s) of it being good, so even though
your cognitive dissonance blinds you to this reality causing yet more
absurd and amusing denial on your part, yes WE have demonstrated
this.

and by your own admission you lack
expert knowledge on the subject.


We don't need expert knowledge about fish to recognise that
"ar" terrorism always makes things worse. LOL...even as clearly
as it's been demonstrated in this thread you're still unable to
quite grasp the fact, so you certainly aren't in a position to
appreciate any expert level knowledge about it anyway.

Can you see how
that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their
influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable

Nonsense.

There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of
reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could
be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able
to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.


I don't have to imagine. I've seen footage. You are the one who has the
twisted view of reality.


You have given, and are capable of giving, NO reason to believe
that animals in fur farms are alive and comfortable.


I think you're missing a "not".


Oh, okay:

You have given, and are capable of giving, NO reason to believe
that animals in fur farms are "not" alive and comfortable.

There is no reason
why they shouldn't be, and no reason to believe they aren't.


Yes there is, there is plenty of evidence that proves otherwise, as I
said, and you could find it yourself if you were inclined.


No, you could and would have presented it yourself if it existed.

...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and
remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,
getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...


Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the
wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are
worse off for being freed.

There's another perfect example of one of your twisted
views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last
one we looked at.


Have you ever heard of evidence and argument? It tends to be more
convincing than just assertion. Please tell me everything you know
about fur farms, O Enlightened One.


On fur farms they aren't terrified, fighting for their lives, killing native
wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot, getting
poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc... like they are after
your "ar" terrorists get finished having their influence on them.


On fur farms they are confined in such narrow spaces that they go
insane.


Maybe. If so, they should give them wider spaces. Duh.

I've seen footage of fur farms

Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and
dishonest.


That's a totally irrational fantasy based on your prejudices, and in
any case no matter how twisted and dishonest people are, the camera
doesn't lie. The things I saw really happened.


You have said anything a person even COULD consider yet,
and if you ever do it will be the worst situation(s) that your "ar"
propagandists can come up with.


As I say, I have seen video footage of appalling suffering in fur
farms. You have absolutely no reason to think otherwise or any rational
ground to dismiss it as "propaganda".


It IS propaganda. Even if the cases they present were actually as they
presented them, it's still IS propaganda.

Your bizarre prejudices lead you
to characterize the people who took the footage as twisted, rather than
the people who inflict such suffering on innocent animals.


I KNOW that "aras" are extremists, and that they are the most dishonest
people I've ever encountered. In contrast to that, the farmers I've met have
usually been pretty open minded, and ALWAYS have been much more
in touch with reality than any "ara" I've ever encountered.

and I know what the animals suffer.

Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty
much ALL conditions where beings exist:

Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and
some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as
stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most
basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you
can only grasp half of it.


Yes, okay, the occasional farmed animal has a decent life of positive
value.


Billions of them do, not just an occasional animal.


Argue this point, please.


Those who are raised in ways which provide lives of positive value
get them, and there are billions of animals raised in various ways. Figure
it out from there...this one's so obvious you should be able to work it out.

And your point is?


That we have no reason to think a life of positive value
isn't as good or better than no life at all.


Yes, but we've been through this countless times before. We don't think
that this argument justifies breeding humans and prematurely taking
their lives,


Not out of consideration for "them" though.

so unless you wish to argue with that, that shows that by
itself the argument is insufficient.


That gets into the area of the "ar" insistence that animals have
equal value to humans, while "aras" contribute to most of the same
deaths of animals that everyone else does. Would you *really* think
no differently of humans dying in crop fields than you do of rats and
mice? Would you feel no differently about killing a human child with
your car than you would about running over a frog?

If you think some of the
distinguishing characteristics of nonhumans do justify us doing that to
them, then you've got to argue the point.


It's easier to provide an environment they are comfortable in
than one humans are comfortable in, for one thing. Can you understand
that much?

"aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.

No, this is not always the case

It is always the case. Just through the cost increase
alone that your heros force on everybody

On the animal exploiters. That's the point.


They force it on everyone, to the disadvantage of
EVERYONE! Not just for the researchers who make life
better for people and animals who get sick and injured,
but for the people and animals who get sick and injured
TOO!!!


Er, no, not unless all research on animals benefits humans.


Wrong. They have a negative influence on ALL of it.

.. . .

please specify what I do that counts as supporting terrorism.


You're obviously trying to defend it while trying to give the impression
that you're not. It's a sneaky trick no doubt, and it's not working, but
that's what you're trying to do.

and even some normal people who
don't understand what's going on fund your heros through
organizations like PeTA.

Yes, well, obviously people have the right to know what they're funding.


Yes! I everyone knew what they were really paying for, I like
to think your "ar" organizations would be in terrible shape, since
I'd like to believe there is more ignorance than true idiocy involved
with "ar" groups raking in millions of $$$ every year.


Well, you have one instance of one organization that calls itself
animal rights giving a donation, insignificant in comparison with its
total budget, to another organization that has been responsible for
some criminal activity. I don't think you can really conclude from this
that widespread public knowledge of the truth would bring all animal
rights organizations to their knees.


I still hope that most people are more interested in promoting
decent welfare for animals than in contributing to their nonexistence,
ie: "ar". That includes contributors to "ar" organizations the majority
of which I hope have them mistakenly confused with different groups
who actually want to promote long term improvements in AW.

These incidents are fairly widely
publicized anyway, I would imagine quite a lot of people do know about
them. You're attempting to characterize the entire animal rights
movement by means of a fringe segment of it, and even with regard to
the people you're discussing you're not making particularly cogent
arguments. Just for the record, I think a lot of the tactics of the ALF
are unjustified.


Wow. We agree on something.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Classic camera, classic dog MauiJNP Dog behavior 0 January 25th 06 10:51 PM
Classic camera, classic dog Robin Nuttall Dog behavior 7 January 24th 06 10:09 PM
Classic camera, classic dog Marcel Beaudoin Dog behavior 0 January 24th 06 02:07 PM
Classic camera, classic dog Melinda Shore Dog behavior 1 January 23rd 06 10:55 PM
Classic camera, classic dog ceb Dog behavior 0 January 23rd 06 09:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)
Copyright İ2004-2019 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.