View Single Post
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Derek[_2_] Derek[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:27:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
><froth>


<restore>

>>"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.


<end re-restore>

Deal with the material in that post you keep snipping away
and then expalin how your horse-trading can be reconciled
with animal rights, Lesley.