View Single Post
  #210 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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


Why would that be?