View Single Post
  #288 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/13/2012 4:23 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:54:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can
>>>>>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
>>>>>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
>>>>>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
>>>>>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
>>>>>>> incapable of even making an attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep
>>>>>> you from being labelled a ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct.
>>>>
>>>> You proved that you're a moron.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
>>>>>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
>>>>>>> on individual interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as
>>>>>> you do, is moronic.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!!
>>>>
>>>> I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are
>>>> not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.."
>>>> That's horseshit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
>>>>>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
>>>>>>> out that they don't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You pose it as a fact
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, with no importance.
>>>
>>> It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination.

>>
>> Not ones with any sense.

>
> ALL who are willing to consider the entire situation,


No. You are not "considering" something that others do not or cannot.

"Getting to experience life" is meaningless.


>>> It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to
>>> those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into
>>> consideration.

>>
>> It's unimportant to almost everyone, because almost everyone can see
>> what meaningless bullshit it is.

>
> It's a true aspect of


It's meaningless bullshit. You are not "considering" anything "for the
animals". That's simply a lie.


>
>>>>>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them,
>>>>>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".
>>>>>
>>>>> I post in favor of decent AW
>>>>
>>>> No you don't,
>>>
>>> That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a
>>> stupidly blatant lie, if anyone?

>>
>> Everybody who is paying attention believes thattruth, even your
>> ass-chum Smartypants.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people
>>>>> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You
>>>>> goobers really are pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> It just keeps getting worse for you
>>>
>>> LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what you
>>> think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in
>>> multiple lives.

>>
>> I've never said I think you believe in multiple lives.

>
> Good that you haven't agreed with Goo about his lies


I've never told any lies about you.