On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:47:05 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message news >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You haven't challenged him for *ages*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
>> >> >> show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
>> >> >> allow them the valuable experience of challenging
>> >> >> him themselves unaided by me?
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
>> >> >you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
>> >> >one takes him seriously.
>> >>
>> >> If you believe that why are you whining about my
>> >> leaving him unchallenged?
>> >
>> >"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
>> >that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
>> >your ?"whine":

<restore>
No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.

>> >> >Serves him!
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!
>> >
>> >Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.
>>
>> Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
>> my leaving him unchallenged?
>
>See above.

You always write that when you have nothing
to offer in retaliation.

>> >> >> What I do admire about him is his intelligence,
>> >> >
>> >> >Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
>> >> the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
>> >> and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
>> >> manner he gave it rather than waste it.
>> >
>> >Nope - you've lost me.
>>
>> No, you know exactly what I mean.
>
>No, I really really REALLY don't.

Good.

>> >> >> the knowledge he holds,
>> >> >
>> >> >About WHAT??????
>> >>
>> >> Rights.
>> >
>> >He doesn't believe in rights.
>>
>> Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
>> no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.
>
><bucket please>

You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.

>> [Karen to Jon]
>> "You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
>> and you quote them when it suits you to use them
>> against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
>> to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
>> pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
>> defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl
>>
>> Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
>> about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
>> a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
>> advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
>> manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
>> back!
>
>He knows the words, but not the song.

No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
on copying and pasting other people's material instead
of writing your own thoughts and views.

>> >> >> and yes, believe it or not, his patience
>> >> >> with me while I learn all I can from him as his
>> >> >> adversarial student.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
>> >> >NASTY.
>> >>
>> >> NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
>> >> clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
>> >> think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
>> >> mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
>> >> in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.
>> >
>> >Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
>> >whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..
>>
>> Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
>> in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;
>
>Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.

No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
her about it.

>> "I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
>> my hand."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4
>
>She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
>- rightly or wrongly.

Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.

>> It might just as easily have been a dog and something
>> more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
>> into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
>> readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
>> NOT take place in an AR-based society.
>
>I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
>allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.

No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
to her pets.

>> "Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
>> aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
>> wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
>> pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
>> would take place between free, wild animals and
>> humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
>> there."
>> Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc
>>
>> That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
>> and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
>> tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
>> same position as Karen.
>
>You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
>you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
>AR supporters

No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
the same boat as frlpwr.

>> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
>> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
>> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
>> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
>> suffering.
>>
>> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
>> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
>> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
>> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
>> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7
>
>He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
>available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.

That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
of animals.

>That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
of a greater number of them. Priceless!

>> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
>> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
>> deontological rightist. Pah!
>
>Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.

No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
have the slightest idea about rights.

>> [..]
>> >> >You argued with me.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, and why not?
>> >
>> >You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.
>>
>> You're lying now.
>
>I don't lie.

Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
sentence, liar.

>> I made it clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>>
>> "Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
>> everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
>> well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
>> thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
>> then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
>> "Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
>> and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
>> law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
>> node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
>> to zero."
>> Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8
>>
>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:

I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
make his point, so stop lying.

>> You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
>> eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
>> that I would never promote meat.
>
>No.

Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
liar.

>> >> >> >and the result is
>> >> >> >you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
>> >> >> >causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
>> >> >> be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
>> >> >> I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
>> >> >> so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
>> >> >> being myself - warts-n-all.
>> >> >
>> >> >Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to be if I can't be myself.
>> >
>> >Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.
>>
>> I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
>> wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
>> challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
>> it with your own words rather than your usual copy
>> and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.
>
>NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.

You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.
<end restore>

There's some very important matters in what you
snipped away which you ought to try dealing with
instead of running away from them.

>> No, you whined in response to my comment on
>> Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
>> You complained that I don't challenge him, and
>> that's whining.
>
>No.

This thread shows that you did, you horse-trading
liar. Tell me, how can your horse-trading be
reconciled with animal rights? Oh, and don't try
to pretend you don't trade rights-holding horses
for money; you wrote and told me all about those
potential buyers you lied to while trying to sell one
that hadn't been ridden for a long time.

>You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.

Well, I'm not done with you, so buckle up.