Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? That's what we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you believe all along. Why do you deny believing it when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so obvious that you *do* believe it?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist before they are conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. As ****wit uses it, "unborn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of lies, every pregnant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal carries at least one unborn animal."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>>>>>>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>>>>>>>>>>> is not what he means.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>>>>>>>>>> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>>>>>>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Your claims strike me as absurd.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, they don't.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>>>>>> Forget that, time-waster. Focus on the obvious: ****wit is
>>>>>> equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. When he
>>>>>> ****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
>>>>>> farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. He is
>>>>>> talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
>>>>>> existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
>>>>>> Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.
>>
>>>>> When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
>>>>> blatant of lies,
>>
>>>> When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
>>>> be cute by equivocating. This is obvious - even to you.
>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is, time-waster.
>>
>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
>> played.
>
> You're a fool.
non sequitur
|