Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights?

sasha wrote:

> Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million
> of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> granted??)

Because they're really not concerned with rights at
all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.

> Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans
> rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?Isn't it
> true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival couldn't
> care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for the
> wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to spend
> on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it make
> sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
> humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dVGXa.859$Q63.45219@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sasha wrote:
>
> > Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
million
> > of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> > granted??)
>
> Because they're really not concerned with rights at
> all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.

Is this power over life and death? political power? Do they wish to be able
to control who/what lives or dies? Is it power for powers sake??







> > Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans
> > rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?Isn't
it
> > true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival couldn't
> > care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for
the
> > wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to
spend
> > on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it
make
> > sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
> > humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
> >
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dVGXa.859$Q63.45219@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sasha wrote:
>
> > Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
million
> > of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> > granted??)
>
> Because they're really not concerned with rights at
> all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.

You've been caught by a fellow "troll" ~~Jonnie~~.
OK you are using him as a tool, good move, he's the biggest tool around
here.



-------------------------------------Snip
Garbage-----------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Shakingspear666" <shakingspear666.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030804235734.14491.00001024@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >From: "sasha" sasha.DeleteThis@clss.net
>
> >Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
million
> >of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> >granted??
>
> Don't be fooled, Sasha. It's not because ARAs necessarily care more
about
> animals than people (although many do). The secret is... they don't
really
> care (or know) about animals all that much either. What they truly
care
> about is their own suffering egos. The animals are props, simple tools,
> cudgels... all used in an attempt to boost their own self-esteem.
>
> (snip)
> >Doesn't it make
> >sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
> >humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
>
> Of course it makes sense. But if you fail to aquire decent answers
to
> your questioning, perhaps it's because you are asking the wrong question.
Try
> asking yourself, "What really motivates these ARAs, what reward do they
> actually seek"?

Try 'Decency'
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

Ray wrote:
> "Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@ albany.net >" <"DESPAM> wrote in message
> news:LOudnXsPO4hdsLKiXTWJkQ@thebiz.net...
>
>>
>>sasha wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
>
> million
>
>>>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
>>>granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of
>
> humans
>
>>>rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?Isn't
>
> it
>
>>>true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival couldn't
>>>care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for
>
> the
>
>>>wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to
>
> spend
>
>>>on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it
>
> make
>
>>>sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
>>>humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
>>
>> That's funny: those of us work to improve life for both humans and
>>nonhuman animals have never realized that we could do just one or
>>the other, not both. Thanks for the information!
>>
>>
>
> This guy has no interest in animals Michael.

Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
appear morally superior. You fool no one.

> He is a troll without one ounce of decency.

You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
clearly has no sense of decency.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:8WQXa.1359$Q63.84848@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Ray wrote:
> > "Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@ albany.net >" <"DESPAM> wrote in message
> > news:LOudnXsPO4hdsLKiXTWJkQ@thebiz.net...
> >
> >>
> >>sasha wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
> >
> > million
> >
> >>>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take
for
> >>>granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of
> >
> > humans
> >
> >>>rather than trying to force something on someone they may not
want?Isn't
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival
couldn't
> >>>care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to
> >
> > spend
> >
> >>>on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it
> >
> > make
> >
> >>>sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority
of
> >>>humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
> >>
> >> That's funny: those of us work to improve life for both humans and
> >>nonhuman animals have never realized that we could do just one or
> >>the other, not both. Thanks for the information!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This guy has no interest in animals Michael.
>
> Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
> appear morally superior. You fool no one.

That is a lie.
>
> > He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
>
> You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
> accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
> clearly has no sense of decency.

Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll put it
down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG suffering
from viruses. (3 today)

>
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

Shitwipe Slater wrote:

>>>This guy has no interest in animals Michael.
>>
>>Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
>>appear morally superior. You fool no one.
>
>
> That is a lie.

It is the complete truth, Dump. You have no interest
in animals; you merely use them, abusively, in order to
portray yourself in a goofy moral light.

>
>>>He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
>>
>>You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
>>accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
>>clearly has no sense of decency.
>
>
> Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll put it
> down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG suffering
> from viruses. (3 today)

It's a damned shame you're receiving viruses. I didn't
send them to you, and you know it. If you had a shred
of evidence that I had sent them, you'd have publicized
it and taken action on it. You have nothing.

You are a liar with no sense of decency.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:qgSXa.1464$Q63.91088@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Shitwipe Slater wrote:
>
> >>>This guy has no interest in animals Michael.

> >>Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
> >>appear morally superior. You fool no one.
> >
> >
> > That is a lie.
>
> It is the complete truth, Dump. You have no interest
> in animals; you merely use them, abusively, in order to
> portray yourself in a goofy moral light.

That compounds your first lie. You have levelled this accusation against
every member of the side.
>
> >
> >>>He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
> >>
> >>You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
> >>accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
> >>clearly has no sense of decency.
> >
> >
> > Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll
put it
> > down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG
suffering
> > from viruses. (3 today)
>
> It's a damned shame you're receiving viruses. I didn't
> send them to you, and you know it. If you had a shred
> of evidence that I had sent them, you'd have publicized
> it and taken action on it. You have nothing.
>
> You are a liar with no sense of decency.

I have never lied here - but:-

You forgot to address the Two Someone's question.

Now I consider this to be bad grammar, but as I am rather stupid, I am not
certain. Now own up ~~jonnie~~, otherwise I will repost the sentence *plus
the rest of your posting* to alt.english usage. This is not 'Usenet' abuse,
I have a grammar related question and I think that particular NG will
resolve the issue.

Shall we put it to the test?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:59:57 -0500, "sasha" <sasha.DeleteThis@clss.net> wrote:

>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million
>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
>granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans
>rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?
[...]

"AR" is a gross misnomer. What they want is to eliminate domestic
animals, and eliminate human wildlife population management. That's
pretty much all they want. Animals would still be killed in production
of wood, paper, electricity, construction, etc. "ARAs" don't mind
contributing to animal deaths, what they want to avoid are things
that provide them with life.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"rick etter" <retter.RemoveThis@bright.net> wrote in message news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1313832@cletus.bright.net...
>
> Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
>
Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"Derek" <dereknash.RemoveThis@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bh0c38$rvlmu$1@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "sasha" <sasha.RemoveThis@clss.net> wrote in message
news:bh01gn0e3i@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> > Your lifestyle is a sham, one of those self-gratifying, animal killing
lives
> > designed to make you live long and consume even more animals and other
> > resources.
>
> Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> animals than his,
====================
Again, the claim that cannot be proven. Why do you insist on this delusion
twits? Is that really all you have left, lys and delusions? Pity.


and is responsible for the collateral
> deaths and harms of people in the meat trade too.
===============
LOL And you cause no deaths in farming? Besides, I thought no was
responsible except the farmer! You really are too stupid to get in on this,
twits.



snippage of rest of blathering idiocy...
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"extra service" <es.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3F34082D.1A5530D4@aol.com...
> Just a no life troll.
==================
ROTFLMAO And you've added what? Thought so...


snips...
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights? 

"rick etter" <retter.DeleteThis@bright.net> wrote in message
news:wNUYa.8259$Ly2.1321780@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "extra service" <es.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3F34082D.1A5530D4@aol.com...
> > Just a no life troll.
> ==================
> ROTFLMAO And you've added what? Thought so...
>
>
> snips...
>
>
He added more than you sick lad. Obviously an astute guy - He had your
number.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights?