On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:53:32 GMT, swamp >
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>> "vegans", or so-called
>>>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>>>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
>>>>
>>>>The above should go like this:
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>>>
>>>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
>>>
>>>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>>>
>>>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
>>>and die,
>>
>>Very good.
>>
>>>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
>>>suffering my own diet causes.
>>
>>What death and suffering?
>
>That caused by your very existence.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related?

>>you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
>>a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
>>deaths?
>
>The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
>showing starvation will cause starvation.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other?

>>if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
>>us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.
>
>But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...

I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen.

>>>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
>>>and death.
>
>I'll respond to the following rant point by point:
>
>>You demonize yourselves...
>
>Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
>even after you check a reference.

The world of "normal" sane people.

>> and simply cannot stand the fact
>
>Since when have you dealt w/ facts?

It is hard, considering you never give any.

>>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
>>benefits of others and nothing else
>
>That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?

Lord Snooty.

>>, even so, since when has feeling
>>good about oneself been a crime?
>
>When it requires hurting others.

Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for
them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have
nothing to feel proud about in reality.

>>Snip it there, KISS.
>
>Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.

I never go backwards.

>>'You can't win 'em all.'
>>Lord Haw Haw.
>
>I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',

Swamp, how apt.








'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/