|
|
Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support. |
|
|||||||
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
15-01-2005, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that would be the rule operationalized. No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force to use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you are saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you. You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't 5% as clever as you imagine yourself to be. *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, editing. That's sweet. The gaydar has you pegged and the notices went out. 
|
| Ads |
|
15-01-2005, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that would be the rule operationalized. No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force to use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you are saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you. You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't 5% as clever as you imagine yourself to be. *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker.
|
|
15-01-2005, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com,
"Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that would be the rule operationalized. No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force to use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you are saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you. You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't 5% as clever as you imagine yourself to be. *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker. *gaydar on overload*
|
|
15-01-2005, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article . com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker. *gaydar on overload* You really are a self-loathing homo.
|
|
15-01-2005, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
"Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Fudgepacker wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker. *gaydar on overload* You really are a self-loathing homo. roflmao, yes, that must be it, Hector the Projector.
|
|
15-01-2005, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Jay Santos" wrote: *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker. *gaydar on overload* You really are a self-loathing homo. roflmao, yes, that must be it Yes, it must. Why else would you keep calling others homos as a form of insulting them?
|
|
15-01-2005, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
"Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Jay Santos" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Jay Santos" wrote: *another blip Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker. Ah, Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker. *gaydar on overload* You really are a self-loathing homo. roflmao, yes, that must be it Yes, it must. Why else would you keep calling others homos as a form of insulting them? Yes, hector. Who have I referred to as "homo"?
|
|
15-01-2005, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch" wrote: "Ron" wrote in message ... In article , "Dutch" wrote: And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden Rule"? Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. More specifically, moral codes and social mores are determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making the determination. You're just grasping at straws, as usual. Indeed. Indeed - just grasping at straws.
|
|
15-01-2005, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: "Ron" wrote in message ... In article , "Dutch" wrote: And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden Rule"? Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. Satisfying my hunger is not immoral. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. More specifically, moral codes and social mores are determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making the determination. You're just grasping at straws, as usual. Indeed. Indeed - just grasping at straws.
|
|
15-01-2005, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article . com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: homo Ron wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. More specifically, moral codes and social mores are determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making the determination. You're just grasping at straws, as usual. Indeed. Indeed - just grasping at straws.
|
|
15-01-2005, 03:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: homo Ron wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that uses tomatoes.... More specifically, moral codes and social mores are determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making the determination. You're just grasping at straws, as usual. Indeed. Indeed - just grasping at straws.
|
|
15-01-2005, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: homo Ron wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did. That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility. You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused person. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that uses tomatoes.... It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are immoral.
|
|
15-01-2005, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article . com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: homo Ron wrote: In article , "Dutch" wrote: Why? Should there be a relationship? NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and your claim is wrong. The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did. That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility. You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused person. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that uses tomatoes.... It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are immoral. I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch. My action were to walk to the grocery store. My actions were to select tomatoes and then walk to the cashier. My actions were to hand over money, wait for change and then walk home again. The outcomes were to satisfy my hunger. The outcomes where that I was able to prepare my meal. The outcome was that a $20 was replaced by smaller notes and coins. Those were the outcomes of my actions.
|
|
15-01-2005, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did. That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility. You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused person. You're very badly confused. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that uses tomatoes.... It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are immoral. I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch. No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your ****witted game. You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note, fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an asshole.
|
|
15-01-2005, 04:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article om,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: Ron wrote: In article .com, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes. It did more than that. No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did. That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility. You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused person. You're very badly confused. Buying tomatoes is not immoral. It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some responsibility for whatever that immoral result is. One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral. Probably ONLY one. My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that uses tomatoes.... It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are immoral. I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch. No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your ****witted game. You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note, fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an asshole. Weeks? I only began speaking with the person using the name "Rudy" recently. My actions are clear. I walked to the store, selected tomatoes, paid for them and walked home. What was the outcome of MY action?
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Astatine troll | Carl West | Sourdough | 1 | 02-05-2004 07:04 PM |
| What Wine Matches Roast Troll | Cwdjrx _ | Wine | 15 | 23-04-2004 03:12 AM |
| How to filter troll posts - permanently | Duwop | Barbecue | 5 | 07-04-2004 01:26 AM |
| The self feeding troll | Reg | Barbecue | 10 | 13-03-2004 05:11 PM |
| sorry, im a troll | steve | General Cooking | 3 | 16-02-2004 04:25 PM |
Linear Mode
