Claire's big, fat Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>First you're vegan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about
>>>>>>food rather than animal rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed
>>>>>
>>>>>1) to "dislike flesh"
>>>>
>>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish.
>>>
>>>You didn't mention that exception when making
>>>your statement about your dislike for flesh.
>>
>>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single
>>post I ever made, tosser?
>
> Yes, you were,

Talk about a high standard. Where's your comprehensive like-dislike
list, fat ****?

> Let's take your quotes concerning
> hunting, for yet another example of many;
>
> "*I* don't hunt."
> usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7
>
> But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess
> that you DO hunt after all;
>
> "I know from my own hunting as well as from that
> of family members and friends that nobody wants
> to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain."
> usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d
>
> You're an habitual liar.

That's not a lie. I grew up in a family who hunted. When I posted that
in July of 2003, I hadn't hunted in some time. I resumed again later
that year (during hunting season) to help control the overpopulation of
deer and thereby provide meat to the needy through an assistance program.

>>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is
>>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the
>>>>> whole world"
>>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or
>>>>> enjoyment"
>>>>
>>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets
>>>
>>>Then you
>>
>>The past is irrelevant.
>
> Only according to those

Resto
I judged the claims of vegan activists and found them to be
distortions or outright lies. Shame you still stupidly parrot
them.
End restore.

Why do you continue to believe vegan lies and distortions, Nash?

>>>>My position now is consistent
>>>
>>>Your position is
>>
>>based on a learning process.
>
> Confusion, more like.

No, I naively bought into certain aspects of veganism -- e.g., some
health claims -- but I found them to be lacking in veracity each time I
challenged those beliefs/claims. You resent those who challenge,
question, or reject the holy vegan dogma. You see me as some kind of
heretic. That's fine. I see you for what you a a shit-stirring,
morbidly obese, self-crippled yob.

>>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume
>>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights
>>>
>>>Then you have
>>
>>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW.
>
> The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever

It's incongruent with AR. It's filled with commands to kill certain
animals at certain times, and with examples of the consumption of animals.

>>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey?
>>
>> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but
>> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or
>> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to
>> maintain my ethical standard.
>> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3
>
> There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives
> are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped
> eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something
> you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider.

They're not sold in anything containing squid ink, dumb ass. Not only do
you believe vegan lies, you also peddle them. Why do you vegans keep
lying about this?

>>What is it about your ethical standards that allows you to share your
>>wife with your twin?
>
> He took

No, he didn't take -- that would be rape. She *gave* it to him, and she
probably gave it to him *good*. That was her "determination," you
loathsome cuckold.