> >>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to > >>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
> >>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
> > Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to > > you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself > > by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it > > in a self serving manner.
> Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, > is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan. I've finished with him for the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your post fight analysis.
> "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message > > firstoftwins wrote: > > > Forget it! > Jon, you simply don't comprehend the intuitive alliance felt > between AR proponents.
Of course he does, there's nothing new in that, birds of a feather...
> Duping fellow ARA's and feigning > this alliance while holding negative views toward animals are > the traits of an imposter.
It wasn't feigned, I really believed it, just like you really believe all the stuff you dish out, even though half of it is gibberish.
> It's not the done thing to bring yourself > into the fold of a community of like minded people under > false guises and drapery.
Nice prose there Shakespeare. I never misrepresented myself, I believed what I did based on insuffient research, when I did more research I re-evaluated my position based on the updated information and now I believe differently than before. It's called growth Derek, machines can do it, why can't you?
> He double-crossed the animals he > pretended to promote respect to like the Judas he is and > you lot are bloody welcome to him as far as I'm concerned.
In that time I have remained a vegetarian, adopted two more problem cats, and one stray male (we call him Feathers and I'll send a digital photo if you call me a liar)..with the time and effort and heartache that entails, contributed to the SPCA. What have you done? You won't even let your own neglected wife have a pet.
All I have done is drop the facade Derek, and it has made me a more giving person. I'm not a golem anymore. You're wasting your intellect and cramping your real personality defending this stupid shit.
> What is even worse, is that he duped himself into believing his > own lies too. What sort of a person does that?
You are getting better at describing yourself every quote.
> > >>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to > > >>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
> > >>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
> > > Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to > > > you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself > > > by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it > > > in a self serving manner.
> > Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, > > is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
> I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this > wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan.
Is that from Lord of the Rings? I'll bet that's a good movie, glad you have the funds left over to go to the flicks after buying that nice cheap vegan food.
>I've finished with him for > the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your > post fight analysis.
You're the one who took an early shower on those threads. I didn't break a sweat, you didn't come out of the locker room after the first intermission.
I keep telling you, it's not because I'm smart, it's because I'm right.
>>>>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to >>>>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
>>>>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
>>>Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to >>>you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself >>>by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it >>>in a self serving manner.
>>Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, >>is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
> I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this > wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan. I've finished with him for > the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your > post fight analysis.
> firstoftwins wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote
> >>firstoftwins wrote:
> >>>Forget it!
> >>You prove, but with nowhere near the force as > >>~~ratsleaze~~, that "ar" is a religion. There is no > >>one so hate filled, so rage blinded, as a True Believer > >>turning in foaming, irrational frenzy on an apostate.
> > Jon, you simply don't comprehend the intuitive alliance felt > > between AR proponents. Duping fellow ARA's and feigning > > this alliance
> But he didn't dupe any "aras". He was, himself, duped. > The feel-goodism of "ar" was seductive to him, as it > is to a lot of people who don't think very hard in some > key areas of their lives.
It never occured to me at the time that any further inquiry was necessary. If I had been outspoken, perhaps someone might have challenged my ideas, I don't know. Eventually one ends becoming a willing victim of AR sophistry.
> > while holding negative views toward animals are > > the traits of an imposter. It's not the done thing to bring yourself > > into the fold of a community of like minded people under > > false guises and drapery.
> He didn't.
I resigned my membership as soon as I recognized that cds blows a hole in EVism. Only then did the duplicity of it all begin gradually to become clear. It's been interesting.
> > He double-crossed the animals he > > pretended to promote respect to like the Judas he is and > > you lot are bloody welcome to him as far as I'm concerned.
You believe that it's evil to kill a mouse humanely to aid human science, while you see nothing untoward about killing vermin in grain production. Your priorities are all screwed up.
> > What is even worse, is that he duped himself into believing his > > own lies too. What sort of a person does that?
> You.
Notice how he describes himself more and more accurately all the time?
> > >>>It's nothing to do with Side loyalty. I'm a bloke, and she hates > > >>>men, period. > > >> That's totally false. Not only do I not hate > > >> men, I've been married twice to men. > > I wouldn't read too much into that, Derek. She > > wouldn't be the first carpetmuncher who tried to fight > > it, for any number of reasons.
You're correct that I didn't recognize my orientation until I was in my mid-30's; remember I grew up in the 1950's. I'm bisexual enough to orgasm with a man, but I prefer a woman. However, I had no problem living with a man, and parted quite amicably from my husband once both of us realized the situation.
> > One thing you have to try to keep in mind is > > ~~ratsleaze's~~ relationship with her father. He was, > > if memory serves correctly, a career military man. > > During most of her life, the U.S. military had an > > explicit anti-homo policy. There were homos in the > > military, of course, but people who made a career of it > > generally weren't too tolerant of it. ~~ratsleaze~~ is > > of an age (mid to late 50s) for which her father > > wouldn't have been of the more modern, accepting > > mindset. She doubtless preferred the sushi bar to the > > sausage platter all along, but only was trying to > > please dear old dad.
You misunderstand that, too. I did love and respect my father, and admired his values of honesty, integrity, Christian faith, and tolerance for others. He was the man who first taught me Voltaire's quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." After my mother's death, he welcomed my partner into his home, along with me, when we both went back to Albuquerque to care for him. Swan, who had training as a nurse's aide, cared for my father during his illness after major surgery, gave him his meds, and oversaw his physical therapy. My father was a decent, loving gentleman who respected my relationship with my partner and treated her politely and kindly. I learned my respect for diversity from him. Swan says my father was one of the few men she has ever called "Sir."
> > This was difficult for her, because she despised his > > values.
No, I respect his values and try to live by them.
> He was, after all, defending the country that > > she loathes more than any other.
I don't loathe my country; I dislike it's government. ( and BTW, my father was born in Canada. We were a very pro-British household, steeped in English literature and history, and Anglo-Catholic faith.)
> He undoubtedly held > > other conservative views she hated, including a belief > > in the free market, which after all is a prototypically > > American value.
Of course, it is true that my father cast his first vote for Norman Thomas -- a socialist. He was far from the doctrinaire right-winger you imagine him to be. He was a liberal man in every sense of the word.
> > But she had to suck up to the old man, because her > > financial well-being was going to depend on it. She's > > said that she owns her own house, but she didn't buy it > > with money she earned. She's admitted to being an > > absolute financial failure on her own account. The > > house was either inherited from her parents, or paid > > for with money that was inherited from them.
Nope, neither one.
> > Note as well that she was married to men *twice*, both > > of which marriages ended in failure. Her vile > > "partner" Sylvia has posted here that her ex-husband > > (the one that she's mentioned, anyway) used to beat > > her.
Nonsense, Sylvia's husband never beat her.
> When ~~ratsleaze~~ and swan come up for air, it's > > probably only to curse the men who have mistreated > > them, and to damn all men as the same.
Not at all. We both have a number of close male friends.
> Huh! You've got it all figured out haven't you? That was the > most amature piece of personal profiling I've ever seen you > make.
Yes, that it was. Jon has never understood anything about who I am or what I actually believe.
> I must admit I wouldn't make a very accurate personal > profile on Karen myself, but that's maybe because I don't even > get close to understanding homosexuality, let alone the people > who practice it.
You don't have to understand it, just accept that gay people aren't going to threaten or hurt you just by being gay, and are pretty much like everybody else -- good, bad, indifferent, liberal and conservative, religious and non-religious, rich and poor, and everything else people in general are.
> A poof in a blouse would scare me more than > Tyson.
Very few gay men are involved in drag, and more heterosexuals than homosexuals are transvestites. Most gays who dress in women's clothes do it for political reasons -- to mock stereotypical gender roles. Most straight transvestites do it for sexual reasons: they find women's clothing erotic.
<snip>
> > > There's my motive for saying you do done and dusted. I'm > > > as guilty as the next person when trying to ponder on womens > > > reasons for having relations with other women, and just as > > > likely to be jumping to the wrong conclusions as the next > > > person too. So I hope you'll bear with my own stereotyping > > > of you using the same patience you've no doubt had to learn > > > before now on this issue.
No problem. Glad to have the opportunity for a bit of education.
> > >> I > > >> neither hate nor love "men" -- I like or dislike > > >> various human beings, some of whom are male, > > >> some female. And I approve or disapprove of various > > >> tactics, carried out by ARAs or by Antis. > > > You're not usually this non-committal, Karen. Will you at least > > > state a preference to whos company you prefer to keep?
I'm bisexual, with leanings toward Lesbian.
> > >> If I "hated men" or acted strictly on the basis of > > >> "Side loyalty", why would I have protested your > > >> attack on a man and an Anti? > > > I don't know. You surprised everyone I imagine; Kevin most of > > > all in fact. I never saw it coming but assumed later your tirade > > > was in fact the result of my pop at Kevs bird.
It was a personal attack, not related to the subject, and it was aimed at someone not even involved with TPA. I would have responded the same way if Jon had called Belinda -- or, for that matter, Sue Bishop's husband -- a whore. It's sinking to Jon's level, and I know you're better than that.
<snip>
> > >> Do I detect a bit of stereotyping going on here? > > > Just a tad.
It happens to all of us at times. All I ask is that you recognize it as stereotyping.
> > >> <snip> > > >>>>>>You'll regret it. ~~ratsleaze~~ regards your payment > > >>>>>>of them as yet another qualifying act. > > >> No, I don't. Jon is, once again, misrepresenting > > >> my position. > > No, I haven't misrepresented it one bit. > > > I realise that, now, but in an earlier statement of yours; > > > [How responsible are you for little children killed > > > by US bombs? For police brutality and government > > > corruption? After all, you voted, and whether your > > > candidate won or not, *that vote was a vote to support > > > the system as a whole.*] *my emphasis* > > > You seemed to suggest that a "vote" for or against a system > > > is a qualifying act for responsibility in the methods of that > > > system. Jonathan would quickly inform us both that the > > > payments we make to the farmer are "votes" too.
Jon wants to have it both ways. He expects ARAs to accept complete, direct responsibility for what farmers do in raising their crops, even though we can do nothing whatever about that, and have no real choice among farmers. Yet he refuses to accept an equal responsibility for the actions of people acting in his name in government or the economy. He is a hypocrite (or an idiot -- or both). Farmers all use the same methods; we can't buy from one who uses methods we would like. Effectively, we have no real choice. As I say, most people can't just drop out and become farmers -- the practical barriers are just too great.
OTOH, I do believe we all are actors within a world filled with evil. With all the best will in the world, and the best efforts we can make, our lives impact others, human and non-human, in negative ways. We need to recognize that we are not perfect, not free of the effects of our actions. We are sinners in a sinful world (or however you want to put it). But that does not mean, as Mercer and Jon would have us believe, that we should not try to do what we can, even if it will never be enough, or be perfect. "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." (Edmund Burke). As Andrew Linzey wrote: "Western society is so bound up with the use and abuse of animals in so many fields of human endeavor that it is impossible for anyone to claim that they are not party, directly or indirectly, to this exploitation either through the products they buy, the food they eat, or the taxes they pay." The object is to try to do better, while realizing we will never reach perfection.
> >>>>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to > >>>>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
> >>>>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
> >>>Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to > >>>you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself > >>>by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it > >>>in a self serving manner.
> >>Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, > >>is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
> > I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this > > wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan. I've finished with him for > > the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your > > post fight analysis.
> Forget about that.
> How did you like Peter Rabbit?
Terrific! Thanks a lot. You really do have a neighbour with a 12ft rabbit in the front garden. I thought is was a work of topiary or something, but it's clearly made of fibreglass, isn't it? You're neighbourhood's children show a lot of restraint because I couldn't see any signs of vandalism. I wouldn't fancy it's chances up my road. I doubt I'll even bother with any hanging baskets out the front this year after the last lot got nicked and sold at our local boot market.
About the dog; you despicable slime. She's only going through a fad that'll die out when summer gets here. I'm not rejecting her dog using passages from the AR bible because she's oblivious to "all this clap trap you talk about all day". A dog is 15 years of responsibility and sometimes their needs come first, even if it is raining outside. The dog issue will soon be starved out of mind if images of big rough and tumble dogs aren't implanted into it by interfering busy bodies.
>>>He was, after all, defending the country that >>>she loathes more than any other.
> I don't loathe my country; I dislike it's government.
You loathe your country, ~~ratsleaze~~. You loathe all the most basic values of it, but none more so than its generally anti-collectivist orientation to the economy.
>>>But she had to suck up to the old man, because her >>>financial well-being was going to depend on it. She's >>>said that she owns her own house, but she didn't buy it >>>with money she earned. She's admitted to being an >>>absolute financial failure on her own account. The >>>house was either inherited from her parents, or paid >>>for with money that was inherited from them.
> Nope, neither one.
Then it was a gift from someone else. You did not buy your house with money you earned and saved through your own employment. You were a miserable financial failure, so much so you couldn't support your son and he had to go live with your father.
A person flat on her ass like that, doing low-paid work, doesn't suddenly pull together the scratch to live in a nice suburb of Alameda County.
>>>>>>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to >>>>>>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
>>>>>>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
>>>>>Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to >>>>>you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself >>>>>by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it >>>>>in a self serving manner.
>>>>Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, >>>>is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
>>>I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this >>>wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan. I've finished with him for >>>the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your >>>post fight analysis.
>>Forget about that.
>>How did you like Peter Rabbit?
> Terrific! Thanks a lot. You really do have a neighbour with a 12ft > rabbit in the front garden. I thought is was a work of topiary or > something, but it's clearly made of fibreglass, isn't it?
I'm not sure; that's probably a pretty good guess. Maybe I'll summon up the nerve to go ask them.
My malicious sense of humor makes me want to go bother them, anyway. Here's the story. When people go in during an "open house", the bedrooms are always closed off; no visitors are allowed to see them. The lovely Christie is a producer for a schlockey tabloid TV news program over here, so one time when she was down there, she was asking them about the place to see if they would like to be profiled on the program. They wanted money for it, which her company won't do. But during the course of asking them about being interviewed, she asked if the bunny motif extended to the bedrooms. They replied, "We never show the bedrooms." Christie said, "I didn't ask to *see* the bedrooms; I just want to know if the bunny motif is continued there." Same answer: "We never show the bedrooms." She gave up. But I want to ask the same thing, and *not* give up. Eventually I'd ask something like, "Okay, you don't show the bedrooms. But let's suppose somehow, by some strange quirk of physics, I found myself in one of the bedrooms. *Would I see* the bunny motif continued?"
> You're > neighbourhood's children show a lot of restraint because I couldn't > see any signs of vandalism.
There aren't many young people in this neighborhood right now. I think the neighborhood is going through a "recycling". That's a term an estate agent once told me about, in which the old folks die off or move away, and new ones come in to replace them. All of the young kids on the block are too young to be doing any vandalism.
> I wouldn't fancy it's chances up my road. > I doubt I'll even bother with any hanging baskets out the front this > year after the last lot got nicked and sold at our local boot market.
Aha! Now, your resistance to my good common-sense explanation about the stolen goods having value begins to make much more sense!
> About the dog; you despicable slime. She's only going through a fad > that'll die out when summer gets here. I'm not rejecting her dog using > passages from the AR bible because she's oblivious to "all this clap > trap you talk about all day". A dog is 15 years of responsibility and > sometimes their needs come first, even if it is raining outside. The > dog issue will soon be starved out of mind if images of big rough > and tumble dogs aren't implanted into it by interfering busy bodies.
Hey! I implanted the images of the delicious baked beans in her mind, and look how excellently *that* turned out.
Get the dog, Derek. But maybe just get a medium sized one.
Be sure it's a mutt, too. Purebreds look really nice, but mutts almost *always* have more character, and some of them can still look pretty good, too. The big dog I had as a kid was a mutt; mother was Springer spaniel (I think that's an English breed), and the father was either a German shepherd or a Labrador retriever. I tend to go with the shepherd, because he had good size (although a little short; the spaniel side), and he was very intelligent and inquisitive; much more so than any retriever I've ever seen.
> >>>>>>>This is even more interesting. Why did you feel the need to > >>>>>>>invent ways (lie) to yourself to hide or avoid facts about CD?
> >>>>>>Because if one doesn't invent arguments to support AR, there aren't any.
> >>>>>Why did you support AR in the first place if it was illogical to > >>>>>you? You forced yourself upon an idea and deluded yourself > >>>>>by inventing something about it to qualify your support for it > >>>>>in a self serving manner.
> >>>>Exactly! And that's what *every* "ara", necessarily, > >>>>is doing. The crap just doesn't withstand scrutiny.
> >>>I wondered how long it would take you to come and pick this > >>>wormtongue off the floor, Jonathan. I've finished with him for > >>>the time being, so you may as well towel him off and start your > >>>post fight analysis.
> >>Forget about that.
> >>How did you like Peter Rabbit?
> > Terrific! Thanks a lot. You really do have a neighbour with a 12ft > > rabbit in the front garden. I thought is was a work of topiary or > > something, but it's clearly made of fibreglass, isn't it?
> I'm not sure; that's probably a pretty good guess. > Maybe I'll summon up the nerve to go ask them.
> My malicious sense of humor makes me want to go bother > them, anyway.
Which is why I offered you that bet on getting your other neighbour in the lilac house to repaint it with the colour of your own choice agreed between you and I beforehand. I thought it would appeal to your malicious sense of humour and serve as a practical exercise to prove your skills of persuasion and knavery aren't just limited to a keyboard.
> Here's the story. When people go in > during an "open house", the bedrooms are always closed > off; no visitors are allowed to see them. The lovely > Christie is a producer for a schlockey tabloid TV news > program over here, so one time when she was down there, > she was asking them about the place to see if they > would like to be profiled on the program. They wanted > money for it, which her company won't do. But during > the course of asking them about being interviewed, she > asked if the bunny motif extended to the bedrooms.
Christie just can't keep her mind off it at all these days.
> They replied, "We never show the bedrooms." Christie > said, "I didn't ask to *see* the bedrooms; I just want > to know if the bunny motif is continued there." Same > answer: "We never show the bedrooms." She gave up. > But I want to ask the same thing, and *not* give up.
I'd be thinking along those lines too if our beautiful Christie was being rebuffed so mysteriously, and in such a defensive manner like that. I've a hunch there's more for them to feel embarrassed about in those bedrooms than just the mere trivia of people knowing that the bunny motif extends into them. Your determination to find out is also good reason for me to believe my hunch isn't just a wild guess too.
> Eventually I'd ask something like, "Okay, you don't > show the bedrooms. But let's suppose somehow, by some > strange quirk of physics, I found myself in one of the > bedrooms. *Would I see* the bunny motif continued?"
LOL! Check mate! But of course you're not dealing with people who would appreciate that such a closing question as that requires a definite answer, and they might just as well use the same hackneyed reply responsively again.
> > You're > > neighbourhood's children show a lot of restraint because I couldn't > > see any signs of vandalism.
> There aren't many young people in this neighborhood > right now. I think the neighborhood is going through a > "recycling". That's a term an estate agent once told > me about, in which the old folks die off or move away, > and new ones come in to replace them. All of the young > kids on the block are too young to be doing any vandalism.
And by the time they are old enough they've become too lethargic and stoned to bother anyway, hopefully.
> > I wouldn't fancy it's chances up my road. > > I doubt I'll even bother with any hanging baskets out the front this > > year after the last lot got nicked and sold at our local boot market.
> Aha! Now, your resistance to my good common-sense > explanation about the stolen goods having value begins > to make much more sense!
I think a farmer bought the lot for a quid.
> > About the dog; you despicable slime. She's only going through a fad > > that'll die out when summer gets here. I'm not rejecting her dog using > > passages from the AR bible because she's oblivious to "all this clap > > trap you talk about all day". A dog is 15 years of responsibility and > > sometimes their needs come first, even if it is raining outside. The > > dog issue will soon be starved out of mind if images of big rough > > and tumble dogs aren't implanted into it by interfering busy bodies.
> Hey! I implanted the images of the delicious baked > beans in her mind, and look how excellently *that* > turned out.
Yes *it* did work rather well, didn't it. I tried to explain to her "the principle of it," and how they stuck in my throat every morning of that week I ate them, but she insists to this day you offered her that recipe in good heart and in the spirit of friendship. I thought women were more intuitive than that.
> Get the dog, Derek. But maybe just get a medium sized one.
She's not reading this, Jon and she doesn't participate here anymore. She sits with me sometimes but not nearly as much, so don't waste your enregy.
> Be sure it's a mutt, too. Purebreds look really nice, > but mutts almost *always* have more character, and some > of them can still look pretty good, too. The big dog I > had as a kid was a mutt; mother was Springer spaniel (I > think that's an English breed), and the father was > either a German shepherd or a Labrador retriever. I > tend to go with the shepherd, because he had good size > (although a little short; the spaniel side), and he was > very intelligent and inquisitive; much more so than any > retriever I've ever seen.
We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are just so messy around the house. The house just ends up looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> -- as > usual, Jon's "analysis" of me is pure garbage.
Of course it is. We all know Jonathan's perspicacity.... What I don't understand is how his acumen at spotting ad hominem arguments suddenly deserts him when he commits this fallacy himself. He clearly uses your sexual orientation and your fathers politics as an argument against accepting your point instead of addressing the point itself.
> > > >>>It's nothing to do with Side loyalty. I'm a bloke, and she hates > > > >>>men, period.
> > > >> That's totally false. Not only do I not hate > > > >> men, I've been married twice to men.
> > > I wouldn't read too much into that, Derek. She > > > wouldn't be the first carpetmuncher who tried to fight > > > it, for any number of reasons.
> You're correct that I didn't recognize my > orientation until I was in my mid-30's; remember > I grew up in the 1950's. I'm bisexual enough > to orgasm with a man, but I prefer a woman.
ooer.
> However, I had no problem living with a man, and > parted quite amicably from my husband once both > of us realized the situation.
I've never given much thought how I'd react if I lost Belinda to another woman. I'm not that much competition even as a husband, and as a man can see a woman's attraction in other women, so I doubt even losing another 50lbs would enable me to compete against the curves of a female if Belinda ever got curious.
> > > One thing you have to try to keep in mind is > > > ~~ratsleaze's~~ relationship with her father. He was, > > > if memory serves correctly, a career military man. > > > During most of her life, the U.S. military had an > > > explicit anti-homo policy. There were homos in the > > > military, of course, but people who made a career of it > > > generally weren't too tolerant of it. ~~ratsleaze~~ is > > > of an age (mid to late 50s) for which her father > > > wouldn't have been of the more modern, accepting > > > mindset. She doubtless preferred the sushi bar to the > > > sausage platter all along, but only was trying to > > > please dear old dad.
> You misunderstand that, too. I did love and respect > my father, and admired his values of honesty, integrity, > Christian faith, and tolerance for others. He was the > man who first taught me Voltaire's quote: "I disagree > with what you say, but I will defend to the death your > right to say it." After my mother's death, he welcomed > my partner into his home, along with me, when we both > went back to Albuquerque to care for him. Swan, who > had training as a nurse's aide, cared for my father > during his illness after major surgery, gave him his meds, > and oversaw his physical therapy. My father was a decent, > loving gentleman who respected my relationship with my > partner and treated her politely and kindly. I learned my > respect for diversity from him. Swan says my father was > one of the few men she has ever called "Sir."
Do you have a brother?
> > > This was difficult for her, because she despised his > > > values.
> No, I respect his values and try to live by them.
Jon blames my father for my alleged lack of morals too. There's a definite pattern in his thinking.
> > He was, after all, defending the country that > > > she loathes more than any other.
> I don't loathe my country; I dislike it's government. > ( and BTW, my father was born in Canada. We were a very > pro-British household, steeped in English literature > and history, and Anglo-Catholic faith.)
> > He undoubtedly held > > > other conservative views she hated, including a belief > > > in the free market, which after all is a prototypically > > > American value.
> Of course, it is true that my father cast his first > vote for Norman Thomas -- a socialist. He was far > from the doctrinaire right-winger you imagine him to > be. He was a liberal man in every sense of the word.
My dad was a union shop steward with staunch socialist views. He was an accomplished speaker and arbiter for workers rights.
> > > But she had to suck up to the old man, because her > > > financial well-being was going to depend on it. She's > > > said that she owns her own house, but she didn't buy it > > > with money she earned. She's admitted to being an > > > absolute financial failure on her own account. The > > > house was either inherited from her parents, or paid > > > for with money that was inherited from them.
> Nope, neither one.
> > > Note as well that she was married to men *twice*, both > > > of which marriages ended in failure. Her vile > > > "partner" Sylvia has posted here that her ex-husband > > > (the one that she's mentioned, anyway) used to beat > > > her.
> Nonsense, Sylvia's husband never beat her.
> > When ~~ratsleaze~~ and swan come up for air, it's > > > probably only to curse the men who have mistreated > > > them, and to damn all men as the same.
> Not at all. We both have a number of close male > friends.
Did you see the funny side to Jonathan's image he gave in that paragraph above? I laughed aloud when I read it but only because of its over the top example of how some men would describe a lesbians view of men. As with EV's he imagines they only take a breath between mouthful's of blood soaked rice curries to curse the vile farmer. There's a definite pattern in his thinking here too.
> > Huh! You've got it all figured out haven't you? That was the > > most amature piece of personal profiling I've ever seen you > > make.
> Yes, that it was. Jon has never understood anything > about who I am or what I actually believe.
> > I must admit I wouldn't make a very accurate personal > > profile on Karen myself, but that's maybe because I don't even > > get close to understanding homosexuality, let alone the people > > who practice it.
> You don't have to understand it, just accept that > gay people aren't going to threaten or hurt you > just by being gay, and are pretty much like everybody > else -- good, bad, indifferent, liberal and conservative, > religious and non-religious, rich and poor, and > everything else people in general are.
I don't exactly know what it is that sacres me about them. It's certainly not from any physical threat because even lesbians force me on guard for some reason too.
> > A poof in a blouse would scare me more than > > Tyson.
> Very few gay men are involved in drag, and more > heterosexuals than homosexuals are transvestites. > Most gays who dress in women's clothes do it > for political reasons -- to mock stereotypical > gender roles. Most straight transvestites do it for > sexual reasons: they find women's clothing erotic.
> <snip> > > > > There's my motive for saying you do done and dusted. I'm > > > > as guilty as the next person when trying to ponder on womens > > > > reasons for having relations with other women, and just as > > > > likely to be jumping to the wrong conclusions as the next > > > > person too. So I hope you'll bear with my own stereotyping > > > > of you using the same patience you've no doubt had to learn > > > > before now on this issue.
> No problem. Glad to have the opportunity for a > bit of education.
> > > >> I > > > >> neither hate nor love "men" -- I like or dislike > > > >> various human beings, some of whom are male, > > > >> some female. And I approve or disapprove of various > > > >> tactics, carried out by ARAs or by Antis.
> > > > You're not usually this non-committal, Karen. Will you at least > > > > state a preference to whos company you prefer to keep?
> I'm bisexual, with leanings toward Lesbian.
> > > >> If I "hated men" or acted strictly on the basis of > > > >> "Side loyalty", why would I have protested your > > > >> attack on a man and an Anti?
> > > > I don't know. You surprised everyone I imagine; Kevin most of > > > > all in fact. I never saw it coming but assumed later your tirade > > > > was in fact the result of my pop at Kevs bird.
> It was a personal attack, not related to the > subject, and it was aimed at someone not even > involved with TPA. I would have responded the > same way if Jon had called Belinda -- or, for > that matter, Sue Bishop's husband -- a whore. > It's sinking to Jon's level, and I know you're > better than that.
Thanks. I do get it now. No hard feelings.
> <snip> > > > >> Do I detect a bit of stereotyping going on here?
> > > > Just a tad.
> It happens to all of us at times. All I ask is that > you recognize it as stereotyping.
It's all that's left when efforts to understand fails. The human mind demands everything be categorised and labelled. Traits and political persuasions are anything but excluded from this exercise.
> > > >>>>>>You'll regret it. ~~ratsleaze~~ regards your payment > > > >>>>>>of them as yet another qualifying act.
> > > >> No, I don't. Jon is, once again, misrepresenting > > > >> my position.
> > > No, I haven't misrepresented it one bit.
> > > > I realise that, now, but in an earlier statement of yours; > > > > [How responsible are you for little children killed > > > > by US bombs? For police brutality and government > > > > corruption? After all, you voted, and whether your > > > > candidate won or not, *that vote was a vote to support > > > > the system as a whole.*] *my
> [...] > > We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> That's a small price to pay for loyal friendship.
I'll give it some more thought. A dog might take her mind off her teeth and jaw.
> > [...] > > > We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > > > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > > > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > > > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > > > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> > That's a small price to pay for loyal friendship.
> I'll give it some more thought. A dog might take her mind off > her teeth and jaw.
I had forgotten about that when I replied. Yes, I'd say she's extra deserving after what she went through on that. Get the dog.
> > > [...] > > > > We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > > > > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > > > > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > > > > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > > > > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> > > That's a small price to pay for loyal friendship.
> > I'll give it some more thought. A dog might take her mind off > > her teeth and jaw.
> I had forgotten about that when I replied. Yes, I'd say she's extra > deserving after what she went through on that. Get the dog.
Just make sure that you're willing to take care of it for 15-17 years.
Never get a pet unless you're willing to care for it its entire life, and willing to sacrifice things like screens on your windows, getting holes chewed in your carpet, messes, and some behavioral issues. These all come with the territory.
> > [...] > > > We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > > > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > > > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > > > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > > > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> > That's a small price to pay for loyal friendship.
> I'll give it some more thought. A dog might take her mind off > her teeth and jaw.
Try a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel -- a great breed, thoroughly British. I lived for 16 years with one I rescued.
> I've never given much thought how I'd react if I lost > Belinda to another woman. I'm not that much competition > even as a husband, and as a man can see a woman's > attraction in other women, so I doubt even losing another > 50lbs would enable me to compete against the curves of > a female if Belinda ever got curious.
I doubt you have anything to worry about.
<snip>
> Do you have a brother?
I did. He was a Marine, killed in action in the Korean War.
<snip>
> > > I must admit I wouldn't make a very accurate personal > > > profile on Karen myself, but that's maybe because I don't even > > > get close to understanding homosexuality, let alone the people > > > who practice it. > > You don't have to understand it, just accept that > > gay people aren't going to threaten or hurt you > > just by being gay, and are pretty much like everybody > > else -- good, bad, indifferent, liberal and conservative, > > religious and non-religious, rich and poor, and > > everything else people in general are. > I don't exactly know what it is that sacres me about them. > It's certainly not from any physical threat because even > lesbians force me on guard for some reason too.
The unknown, things you can't understand, are often disturbing and frightening. Try a thought experiment. Think about the way you react to an attractive woman. Is there anything intellectual about it? Did you choose it in any way? Is there anything you could do do make yourself react the same way to another man? Does this reaction feel natural and obvious to you -- something so obvious you can't imagine how anyone could feel any other way? That is exactly the way gay people feel about their partners. There is no way a gay person can feel any different.
What gay people do about their feelings is as varied as what straight people do about their feelings. Some gay men and Lesbians are promiscuous and shallow; some are monogamous and in committed relationships. Orientation (gay or straight) is just emotional reactions: who you find attractive, like preferring a blonde or a woman with sexy legs or big breasts. But how you act in response to your feelings is what counts: you can be a faithful married man who loves his wife, a playboy who flits from one pretty woman to another and doesn't care much about their feelings, or a brutal rapist. A gay person or Lesbian is exactly the same; only the person they want as a partner is different.
If you are interested in having an honest talk about what being a Lesbian is like, or more information about gay people, feel free to E-mail me at lab...@pacbell.net. Or go to:
> > Jon wants to have it both ways. > So do...... no, I'll try and raise my game a bit. > > He expects > > ARAs to accept complete, direct responsibility > > for what farmers do in raising their crops, > > even though we can do nothing whatever about that, > > and have no real choice among farmers. Yet he > > refuses to accept an equal responsibility for the > > actions of people acting in his name in government > > or the economy. He is a hypocrite (or an idiot -- > > or both). Farmers all use the same methods; we > > can't buy from one who uses methods we would like. > > Effectively, we have no real choice. As I say, most > > people can't just drop out and become farmers -- the > > practical barriers are just too great. > > OTOH, I do believe we all are actors within a world > > filled with evil. With all the best will in the world, > > and the best efforts we can make, our lives impact > > others, human and non-human, in negative ways. We > > need to recognize that we are not perfect, not free > > of the effects of our actions. We are sinners in a > > sinful world (or however you want to put it). But that > > does not mean, as Mercer and Jon would have us believe, > > that we should not try to do what we can, even if it > > will never be enough, or be perfect. "Nobody made a > > greater mistake than he who did nothing because he > > could only do a little." (Edmund Burke). As Andrew > > Linzey wrote: "Western society is so bound up with the > > use and abuse of animals in so many fields of human > > endeavor that it is impossible for anyone to claim > > that they are not party, directly or indirectly, to > > this exploitation either through the products they > > buy, the food they eat, or the taxes they pay." The > > object is to try to do better, while realizing we will > > never reach perfection. > While I agree with most of what you say here, I cannot agree > that we are "party, directly or indirectly" or morally responsible > for the shortcomings of others in their actions, be they farmers > or brain surgeons. A surgeon wouldn't blame the public for any > failures and subsequent deaths on his operating table. He would > take the blame himself or curse the intricacy of the procedure he > used. The farmer must also accept responsibility for his own failures > to safeguard non target animals in the same light too, because no > one else can take that responsibility for him, in my view. I'm pretty > sure none of us here take on any responsibility for the deaths of > those who built the Panama Canal.
I agree with you that the farmer must accept the responsibility for his actions toward animals. Those who buy his veggies are not responsible for that. But the fact that there are customers for his veggies is the reason he grows them, so each individual customer has a tiny, tiny part in setting the farmer in motion. We have an effect, even though the effect of each customer is very small, like the effect of one raindrop on creating a flood. That is not to say we intend this effect, or can do much to control it. One raindrop does not create the flood that washes out a bridge, and the raindrop is not responsible for destroying the bridge. But without the effect of all the raindrops together, the bridge would not be washed away.
Jon and Mercer deliberately confuse two kinds of responsibility.
> > > [...] > > > > We both grew up with big fat labs around us coincidentally, > > > > and I've no real objection to pet ownership, but dogs are > > > > just so messy around the house. The house just ends up > > > > looking and stinking like an old kennel. Their feet stink and > > > > they trump all over the place or they're ruining the garden.
> > > That's a small price to pay for loyal friendship.
> > I'll give it some more thought. A dog might take her mind off > > her teeth and jaw.
> Try a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel -- a great > breed, thoroughly British. I lived for 16 years > with one I rescued.
The more modern ones are prone to all sorts of genetic disorders. You'd have to be very careful about choosing bloodlines.
Sue, allergic to dogs and sorry she can't have one
> <snip> > > I've never given much thought how I'd react if I lost > > Belinda to another woman. I'm not that much competition > > even as a husband, and as a man can see a woman's > > attraction in other women, so I doubt even losing another > > 50lbs would enable me to compete against the curves of > > a female if Belinda ever got curious.
> I doubt you have anything to worry about.
> <snip> > > Do you have a brother?
> I did. He was a Marine, killed in action in > the Korean War.
You have my commiserations for such an incomprehensible loss. Your country owes a lot of thanks to your family, and it's no wonder you are concerned about what America does with the dues the "Winter" family paid into it.
> <snip> > > I don't exactly know what it is that sacres me about them. > > It's certainly not from any physical threat because even > > lesbians force me on guard for some reason too.
> The unknown, things you can't understand, are often > disturbing and frightening.
That's exactly what I put it down to; irrational fears. I'm not a very worldly man and don't have any gay friends that I know of, so a certain amount of any anxieties I may have stem from not being aquainted with the gay scene or it's population.
> Try a thought experiment. > Think about the way you react to an attractive woman. > Is there anything intellectual about it? Did you > choose it in any way? Is there anything you could do do > make yourself react the same way to another man? Does > this reaction feel natural and obvious to you -- > something so obvious you can't imagine how anyone could > feel any other way? That is exactly the way gay people > feel about their partners. There is no way a gay person > can feel any different.
That is of course if the subject in this thought experiment arrives at the same conclusion after each part in the experiment. I bailed half way through with a headache.
> What gay people do about their feelings is as varied as > what straight people do about their feelings. Some gay > men and Lesbians are promiscuous and shallow; some are > monogamous and in committed relationships. Orientation > (gay or straight) is just emotional reactions: who you > find attractive, like preferring a blonde or a woman > with sexy legs or big breasts. But how you act in > response to your feelings is what counts: you can be > a faithful married man who loves his wife, a playboy who > flits from one pretty woman to another and doesn't care > much about their feelings, or a brutal rapist. A gay > person or Lesbian is exactly the same; only the person > they want as a partner is different.
> If you are interested in having an honest > talk about what being a Lesbian is like, or more > information about gay people, feel free to E-mail > me at lab...@pacbell.net. Or go to:
> <snip> > > While I agree with most of what you say here, I cannot agree > > that we are "party, directly or indirectly" or morally responsible > > for the shortcomings of others in their actions, be they farmers > > or brain surgeons. A surgeon wouldn't blame the public for any > > failures and subsequent deaths on his operating table. He would > > take the blame himself or curse the intricacy of the procedure he > > used. The farmer must also accept responsibility for his own failures > > to safeguard non target animals in the same light too, because no > > one else can take that responsibility for him, in my view. I'm pretty > > sure none of us here take on any responsibility for the deaths of > > those who built the Panama Canal.
> I agree with you that the farmer must accept the responsibility > for his actions toward animals. Those who buy his veggies > are not responsible for that. But the fact that there are > customers for his veggies is the reason he grows them, so > each individual customer has a tiny, tiny part in setting > the farmer in motion.
... to grow more veggies. No one actually pays the farmer to cause CD along the way. He may complain that he cannot grow our veg any other way but his profits are not my concern here. I am looking at this from a rights pov rather than a utilitarian pov where CD are allowable for the good consequences of higher profits. He can change his methods and has full control over them unlike the consumer's impuissance.
> We have an effect, even though the > effect of each customer is very small, like the effect of one > raindrop on creating a flood. That is not to say we intend > this effect, or can do much to control it. One raindrop > does not create the flood that washes out a bridge, and > the raindrop is not responsible for destroying the bridge. > But without the effect of all the raindrops together, the > bridge would not be washed away.
I consider these raindrops you mention to be more akin to the farmer's methods and incentives for more and more profit rather than the customers you mention who buy the produce he taints unnecessarily, and even though "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> Jon and Mercer deliberately confuse two kinds of > responsibility.
Jon and Mercer would deliberately confuse night and day if they thought it would benefit there argument.
> I agree with you that the farmer must accept the responsibility > for his actions toward animals. Those who buy his veggies > are not responsible for that. But the fact that there are > customers for his veggies is the reason he grows them, so > each individual customer has a tiny, tiny part in setting > the farmer in motion.
Just as each meat eater has a tiny part in setting the meat industry in motion, and that tiny part, represented by the food YOU consume is 100% controllable by you, unless you claim to be paralyzed and are being fed by people who won't listen to your wishes. If that were the case, I would not blame you, it would then be somewhat analagous to the control we have over the choices made by our goverments.
We have an effect, even though the
> effect of each customer is very small, like the effect of one > raindrop on creating a flood. That is not to say we intend > this effect, or can do much to control it. One raindrop > does not create the flood that washes out a bridge, and > the raindrop is not responsible for destroying the bridge. > But without the effect of all the raindrops together, the > bridge would not be washed away.
There is no bridge to wash out, no cumulative effect to be addressed in this analogy, just the individual responsibility held by each consumer for the animals killed to produce HIS food.
> Jon and Mercer deliberately confuse two kinds of > responsibility.
You are deliberately confused to protect your agenda, and willfully blind. The kind of responsibility we have for the actions of our governments is a very remote responsibility. We get one vote every 4 years, beyond that all we can do is suck it up, beat a drum or go to prison for civil disobedience. The consequences of our diets are fully controllable by the food choices we make day after day. You personally issue death warrants for animals every day at the market.
"Derek" <d...@nash16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote... > "Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote > > firstoftwins wrote: > > > "Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote [..] > > I agree with you that the farmer must accept the responsibility > > for his actions toward animals. Those who buy his veggies > > are not responsible for that. But the fact that there are > > customers for his veggies is the reason he grows them, so > > each individual customer has a tiny, tiny part in setting > > the farmer in motion.
> ... to grow more veggies. No one actually pays the farmer to cause > CD along the way.
You don't want him to do it, neither do I, but he does it and you know it, and you pay him anyway. That equals accessory after the fact in law, and in logic.
> He may complain that he cannot grow our veg > any other way but his profits are not my concern here.
He doesn't complain, because you and your kind aren't demanding that it be done any other way, you comply quietly and willingly.
> I am looking > at this from a rights pov rather than a utilitarian pov where CD are > allowable for the good consequences of higher profits.
It's not about higher profits (you use the word pjoratively) It's about growing and harvesting crops in a time frame permitted by climatic conditions, available labour and at a price that ordinary people can afford. I'll bet a $10 carrot would taste great!
> He can > change his methods and has full control over them unlike the > consumer's impuissance.
Are you claiming impunity because you are compelled to buy his produce? Aristotle might not like that.
> > We have an effect, even though the > > effect of each customer is very small, like the effect of one > > raindrop on creating a flood. That is not to say we intend > > this effect, or can do much to control it. One raindrop > > does not create the flood that washes out a bridge, and > > the raindrop is not responsible for destroying the bridge. > > But without the effect of all the raindrops together, the > > bridge would not be washed away.
> I consider these raindrops you mention to be more akin to the > farmer's methods and incentives for more and more profit rather > than the customers you mention who buy the produce he taints > unnecessarily, and even though "I disagree with what you say, > but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
How gallant of you Sir Derek. Yes, not even Rat can support the fallacy you are trying perpetrate.
> > Jon and Mercer deliberately confuse two kinds of > > responsibility.
> Jon and Mercer would deliberately confuse night and day if > they thought it would benefit there argument.
You should learn to examine these glib rejoinders of yours, more and more they are excruciatingly self-descriptive.
You, Jon, and Mercer are simply wrong on this. Your only purpose is to run a shoddy guilt trip on your opponents and attack their personal character. If you don't even accept the argument when it applies to your own actions, it is obvious the whole attack is nothing more than a dishonest ploy. Sorry, no takers on this side of the fence.
> "Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote > > firstoftwins wrote:
> [..]
> > I agree with you that the farmer must accept the responsibility > > for his actions toward animals. Those who buy his veggies > > are not responsible for that. But the fact that there are > > customers for his veggies is the reason he grows them, so > > each individual customer has a tiny, tiny part in setting > > the farmer in motion.
> Just as each meat eater has a tiny part in setting the meat industry in > motion, and that tiny part, represented by the food YOU consume is 100% > controllable by you, unless you claim to be paralyzed and are being fed by > people who won't listen to your wishes. If that were the case, I would not > blame you, it would then be somewhat analagous to the control we have over > the choices made by our goverments.
> We have an effect, even though the > > effect of each customer is very small, like the effect of one > > raindrop on creating a flood. That is not to say we intend > > this effect, or can do much to control it. One raindrop > > does not create the flood that washes out a bridge, and > > the raindrop is not responsible for destroying the bridge. > > But without the effect of all the raindrops together, the > > bridge would not be washed away.
> There is no bridge to wash out, no cumulative effect to be addressed in this > analogy, just the individual responsibility held by each consumer for the > animals killed to produce HIS food.
> > Jon and Mercer deliberately confuse two kinds of > > responsibility.
> You are deliberately confused to protect your agenda, and willfully blind. > The kind of responsibility we have for the actions of our governments is a > very remote responsibility. We get one vote every 4 years, beyond that all > we can do is suck it up, beat a drum or go to prison for civil disobedience. > The consequences of our diets are fully controllable by the food choices we > make day after day. You personally issue death warrants for animals every > day at the market.
"Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> top posted
> You, Jon, and Mercer are simply wrong on this.
Ipse Dixit.
> Your only purpose is to run a shoddy guilt trip > on your opponents and attack their personal > character.
Imputing motives is not a valid form of argument
> If you don't even accept the argument > when it applies to your own actions,
I explained the distinctions very clearly. Making daily choices about one's own personal life are not the same as a single choice one makes every 4 or 5 years voting for a government that does whatever it wants anyway. The degree of personal responsibility for the consequences are proportionally different based on the amount of individual control one has over the outcomes. You have a high degree of control over your daily personal choices of hygiene, transportation, diet, etc.. and virtually no control over the actions of your government.
> it is obvious > the whole attack is nothing more than a dishonest > ploy. Sorry, no takers on this side of the fence.
Swan & Rat wrote: > You, Jon, and Mercer are simply wrong on this.
No, we're right.
> Your only purpose is to run a shoddy guilt trip > on your opponents and attack their personal > character.
No, that's absolutely false, and you know it; you're lying deliberately. It isn't about guilt at all, as I've explained many times to Derek. It's about proving to "aras" that their claims to ethical behavior are false.
> If you don't even accept the argument > when it applies to your own actions,
It isn't the same argument, as I've shown many times. The false comparison you are trying to cobble together is trying to compare things that are different in kind as well as degree. The comparison is simply invalid, and by now, you know it. Your sticking with it is the worst sort of polemical sophistry; nothing more.
> it is obvious > the whole attack is nothing more than a dishonest > ploy. Sorry, no takers on this side of the fence.
No, it's a valid exposition of your invalid moral reasoning leading to a demonstrably false conclusion.
|
