XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 17 Apr 2006 17:38:26 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 14 Apr 2006 17:44:20 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On 12 Apr 2006 18:23:22 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> On 10 Apr 2006 17:57:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> >Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is   
   >> >> >> >> >> >> >to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.   
   >> >> >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> >>     They want to eliminate animals raised for food.   
   >> >> >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >> >> >They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for   
   food. If a   
   >> >> >> >> >> >side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.   
   >> >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >>     That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which   
   is the complete   
   >> >> >> >> >> opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need   
   to be   
   >> >> >> >> >> very opposed to "ar"!   
   >> >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >> >No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no   
   problem if   
   >> >> >> >> >for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long   
   as   
   >> >> >> >> >they stopped exploiting and killing them.   
   >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >>     People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!   
   >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation   
   >> >> >> >and killing of animals?   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>     People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock   
   for any   
   >> >> >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock.   
   If you   
   >> >> >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't   
   >> >> >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you   
   understand.   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >People who, for some bizarre reason, think it's terribly important that   
   >> >> >livestock be brought into existence to have decent lives, can work to   
   >> >> >pursue this goal. This is all perfectly consistent with the AR cause.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     No it's not. You want people to think it is so they'll keep sending   
   money   
   >> >> even when they're not in favor of the elimination "cause", but that's   
   just   
   >> >> another example of "ar" dishonesty.   
   >> >   
   >> >Nonsense.   
   >>   
   >>     You want people who are in favor of decent lives for domestic animals,   
   >> to contribute to the elimination of domestic animals by mistakenly sending   
   >> money to "ar" organizations.   
   >   
   >I want more people to support the AR cause, and I want those who do to   
   >contribute money.   
      
       Then we agree.   
      
   >I don't want anyone to contribute money to something   
   >they don't approve of.   
      
       I'm certainly not convinced of that. And even IF you do feel that way,   
   there are others who do not. One of your brothers specifically stated that:   
      
   "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who   
   do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch   
      
   Because of his support for that situation, observe how he reacts when   
   someone points out the huge difference between AW and "ar":   
   _________________________________________________________   
   From: "Dutch"    
   Message-ID:    
      
   dh pointed out:   
      
   > AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of   
   > farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're   
   > the same thing, they are completely different objectives.   
      
   Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow   
   your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)