"LordSnooty" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
================
That sure leaves you and your family out of the loop, doesn't it killer?


>
> >> and simply cannot stand the fact
> >
> >Since when have you dealt w/ facts?
>
> It is hard, considering you never give any.
=================
They've been given many times loser. You continue to ignore them so that
you can continue to kill animals willy-nilly. You just must like all the
killing you do, eh hypocrite?


>
> >>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.
================
You aren't even vegan, you ignorant fool. You prove that with every
ignorant post you make to usenet, killer.


>
> >>, 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/