low time value rupie blabbered:

> On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>>>>>>>> son,
>>>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>>>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>>>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>>>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>>>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>>>>>>>> like her.
>>>>>>> Okay
>>>>>> She loathes her son.
>>>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
>>>>> myself.
>>>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
>>>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
>>>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>>>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
>>>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
>>>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
>>>>>> will be *** like her.
>>>>> Don't see a problem with that.
>>>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
>>>> Sootikin.
>>> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
>>> being ***?
>> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
>> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
>> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
>> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
>> her. She wants it because it would make her son
>> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
>> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
>> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
>>
>
> So you say.

Read her posts on it, shitbag. It's obvious.


>>> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
>> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
>> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
>>
>> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
>> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
>> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
>> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
>>
>> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
>> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
>>
>
> No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
> as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.

No, it wasn't.


>>>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
>>>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
>>>>>> isn't Christian.
>>>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
>>>>> sickening.
>>>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>>> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
>> ipse dixit
>>
>>>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
>>>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
>>>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
>>>> behavior.
>>> No, I'm afraid that's you
>> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
>>
>>>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
>>>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
>>>> usenet.
>>> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
>> You are entirely self absorbed.
>>
>
> What was that about "ipse dixit"?

You practically *scream* self absorption.


>>>>> You once told me to
>>>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
>>>> More than sufficient provocation.
>>>> Did you do it? Why not?
>>> Contemptible slimeball.
>> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
>>
>>>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
>>>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>>> [...]
>>>> You have no standing either, rupie.
>>> No, that's you,
>> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
>>>>>>>>> At what age?
>>>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
>>>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
>>>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>>> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
>>> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
>> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
>> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
>> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
>>
>
> Well, that's all as may be.

It's fact, rupie. Sootikin/Karen isn't concerned with
her own happiness, but rather with augmenting her son's
unhappiness, which - perversely, psychotically -
contributes to Karen's happiness. That's sick; ****ed up.


>>>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>>>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>>>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
>>>> what self-absorption does to a person.
>>> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
>> Done, many times over.
>>
>
> Ridiculous

**** off, rupie.


>>>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
>>>>>>> I don't think
>>>>>> I've noticed.
>>>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
>>>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>>>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
>>>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
>>>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>>>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
>>>>>> in her church
>>>>> I really don't care.
>>>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
>>>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>>> You're a bit confused here,
>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>>
>
> Yes,

No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.


>>>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
>>>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
>>>> No, that's not so.
>>> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
>> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
>> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
>> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
>> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
>>
>
> Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
> organization is?

I think that's pretty obvious, rupie. Is sharia law
part of the fundamental character of Australia, you
****? Would someone advocating the establishment of
sharia for Australia be going against the fundamental
character of the place, rupie, you ****?

You shouldn't even bother answering that, rupie -
you'll disgrace yourself.


>>>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
>>>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
>>>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
>>>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
>>>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>>> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
>> False.
>>
>
> Pffffffft.

Incoherent blabber.


>>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>>>> Who has she hurt?
>>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
>> She spilled it her for one and all.
>
> So what?

So, rupie, you ****, she voluntarily made it our business.


>> Sootikin/Karen
>> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
>> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
>> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>>
>
> When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?

She attacks chico's, Derek's and my character every
chance she gets. It's pure bile.


>>>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>>>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>>>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>>>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
>>>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>>>>>>>> "harmful"?
>>>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>>>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
>>>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>>>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
>>>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>>>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
>>>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
>>>>> to listen.
>>>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
>>>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
>>>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
>>>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
>>>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>>> Fine.
>> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
>> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
>> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...

WELL, rupie, you stupid ****?


>>
>>>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
>>>>>> or reject it.
>>>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
>>>> St. Bede's did.
>>> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
>> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
>>
>
> Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.
>
>>>>> You seem to be upset that
>>>>> they've chosen not to do that.
>>>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
>>>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
>>>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>>> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
>>> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
>> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
>> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
>> preposterous.
>>
>
> No, Rudy, you have absolutely no clue about what I do

I know you, rupie. You're a passivist. You do nothing.


>>>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
>>>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>>>> Having a moral high ground
>>>> You don't.
>>> Every minimally decent person
>> That lets you out.
>>
>
> Stop projecting.

You're not minimally decent, rupie, you massive
hypocrite and liar.


>>>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>>>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>>>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
>>>> Implicitly, she did.
>>> Nonsense.
>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
>>
>
> Imbecile.

Another rupie one-word concession of defeat. Two in a row!


>>>>>>> instead of listing the
>>>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
>>>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
>>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>>>> I don't know.
>>>> You don't know anything.
>>> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
>> No.
>>
>>>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>>>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
>>>>> credibility.
>>>> You don't know anything, rupie.
>>>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
>>>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
>>>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>>>>>> I meet my standards,
>>>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
>>>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>>> No.
>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>>>> yours?
>>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
>>>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
>>>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
>>>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>>> Er, no,
>> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
>> hoc temporizing.
>>
>
> My moral standards are

non existent. You are fully immersed in ad hoc expediency.


>>>>>> **** off.
>>>>> No, you **** off.
>>>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong
>>>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
>>>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
>>>>>>> about casting the first stone.
>>>>>> It was relevant.
>>>>> No.
>>>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
>>>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>>> No, it doesn't.
>> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
>> disqualifying factor.
>>
>
> Nope.

Yep.


>>>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
>>>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>>>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>>>>> No, you didn't.
>>>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>>> He didn't give any good reason.
>> He did.
>>
>
> No, he did not,

He did.


>>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
>>>> do that a lot.
>>> Your delusions
>> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
>> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
>>
>
> Rudy, you know perfectly well that

I know perfectly well that, when you blabber a one-word
answer, rupie, it is a concession of failure.


>>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>>>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
>>>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>>> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
>> I do know about it, rupie.
>>
>
> Very interesting.

Up to a point, rupie.


>>> Either the desire
>>> exists or it doesn't.
>> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
>> desire.
>>
>
> Why not?

The animal *never* would have come upon it naturally.


>>>>>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>>>>>> tested on animals,
>>>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
>>>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>>>> Evasion noted, rupie.
>>> No evasion,
>> Evasion, rupie; noted.
>>
>
> Nope, no evasion.

Evasion; noted.


>>>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
>>>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
>>>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
>>>> fire on students and professors.
>>> We were talking about medications I take regularly.
>> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
>> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
>> of your consumption of them.
>>
>
> He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
> that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly

No, you stupidly read that into it. It wasn't there.
It's your youth, rupie - you're overmatched.


>> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
>> queers any bullshit about "ar".
>>
>
> No, it doesn't,

It does, rupie. Sorry (well, not really.)


>>>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>>>>>> medication in the near future.
>>>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>>>>> No.
>>>> You should, because you are one.
>>> No.
>> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.
>
> Get a life.

Have one, thanks. You should try it.

"Rupert" > wrote
> I'm extremely honest with myself

No you're not, you hide from the truth by becoming non-responsive and
evasive when an idea threatens to undermine this "equality for animals"
idael that you have allowed yourself to become enamoured with.

Rupert wrote:
> On May 1, 10:13 pm, chico > wrote:
>> Rupert, who's pro-bestiality even if it includes conditioning, wrote:
>>
>> This summarizes your worldview:
>>
>>> I really don't care.
>> But yet you continue trying to jump into the fray, trying to stake out
>> some kind of moral high ground, and only making an ass of yourself.
>>
>
> I'm not making an ass of myself.

Don't sell yourself short, Rupie. You'd making a huge ass of yourself.

> Your previous behaviour shows that
> you are not fit to converse with decent people. And yet you
> pontificate about what a follower of Christ would do. It's enough to
> make anyone want to throw up. You bicker at Karen about things that
> happened years ago,

Last year.

>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>> Having a moral high ground
>> You're incapable of having one.
>>
>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>> I don't know.
>> Then don't drag him into the discussion, twit.
>
> Why not?

Because those are the issues at hand: schism and character. Karen has
caused the former has none of the latter.

>>> This is the man whom you once said was my "better".
>> He still is.
>
> Very amusing. So, tell me, how is it that when Karen calls people vile
> names and makes threats of violence it reflects poorly on her, but
> when Jon does the same he is a fine upstanding citizen?

Karen does it while pretending to be Christian -- she uses religious
pretexts for AR, she uses religion as a crutch after she's dished out
shit at others and if they dish anything back at her. Re-read the thread
from the start where she mentioned Al and me and intimated that she's
above reproach for the way she's treated others. And her treatment goes
beyond the stuff last year when she called the Nashes names, it extends
to real life with the abandonment of her son, etc.

To the best of my recollection, Jon has never pontificated about
religion to support his views, hypocritically suggested others do unto
him as he's not done unto them, etc.

You're a clueless **** when it comes to making analogies. These two
people aren't comparable. One pretends to be pious but is one of the
most self-absorbed, impious people I've ever encountered. She has no
substance. The other one may rub (muddle-headed) people the wrong way
but appears to lead a fairly decent life without cloaking himself in
religion or hiding behind it. He has the substance she lacks. She talks
the talk, he walks the walk.

>>> It seems to me you're a
>>> bit selective in your criticism of people.
>> Especially silly little ******s like you who think it's wrong for people
>> to eat animals but okay for people to molest them.
>
> Your position that factory-farming is okay

My position is that "factory farming" is hyperbole. Farming has always
been about business, it's always been profit-driven, it's always been
about maximizing yields from the least amount of inputs.

> but mutually desired sexual
> contact between nonhumans and humans isn't is a joke.

I take issue with how mutual the desire is in cases involving
conditioning. You have no problem with humans conditioning animals for
their own sexual gratification. I do.

>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>> yours?
>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did
>> In your opinion -- the same one that thinks eating meat is immoral but
>> buggery with children and animals is acceptable.
>
> Yep, that's right.

Pervert.

> My moral opinions are a lot

....of BS. You're amoral.

>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>> Ridiculous.
>> You sure are.
>>
>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>> I don't think
>> Established.
>>
>>> the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>> The "sincerity" and "desire" of the conditioned or the conditioner? A
>> conditioned response is hardly voluntary,
>
> Why not?

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychology/unit_6.htm

> Tell me what you mean by "conditioning". Do you think humans
> would be able to function in modern society without conditioning?

Don't change the subject. The issue is conditioning in human:animal
sexual relations.

>> particularly if negative
>> reinforcement has been used
>
> Negative reinforcement for failure to be sexually compliant is not
> morally permissible.

Yet it happens when animals are restrained or confined or given other
negative reinforcement for not acceding to a perverted human who desires
sexual relations with it. And even positive reinforcement should be
morally impermissible because the animal's specific desire is the reward
or praise, not to be molested.

>> and its threat hangs over the conditioned
>> party. And why cut any slack to people who manipulate animals for their
>> own perverted pleasure? That's not what the animal chooses to do -- the
>> animal wants reward, not sex.
>
> What the animals' motives are don't undermine the voluntary nature of
> its action.

BS.

> I don't claim any great insight

No kidding.

>> You're sicker than you think.
>>
>>> I
>>> have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
>>> animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
>>> is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists.
>> Other than confused male animals mounting menstruating women, tell me
>> when "genuine desire exists" on the part of animals.
>
> I'm not an expert

Yet you had to stick your nose in and pretend you were.

>>> I have never
>>> made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.
>> Why are you starting now?
>
> I'm not.

You keep butting in. How many sheep have you banged?

>>> I have simply said that it seems to me possible that a nonhuman animal
>>> might sometimes have a genuine desire for sexual contact with a human
>> Conditioning notwithstanding?
>
> I'm not clear

No kidding.

>>> and that we might be in a position to know this, and when that happens
>>> I don't see anything morally objectionable about initiating such
>>> contact.
>> Pervert.
>>
>>>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>>>> tested on animals,
>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>>>> medication in the near future.
>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>>> No.
>> A little honesty with yourself would do you good.
>
> I'm extremely honest with myself

Self-delusions aren't something to be proud of.

Rupert wrote:

>>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>>>> Who has she hurt?
>>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
>> She spilled it her for one and all.
>
> So what? What entitles you to rub her nose in it ever after?

I rescind my apology to her (which was offered with the hope of reaching
a truce with her), which she refused to acknowledge (much less offer
forgiveness). I offered her an olive branch. She not only rejected it,
she added further insult in this thread -- which is why I've responded
to her as I have. Her refusal to even acknowledge my apology showed me
how insincere she is when it comes to such issues, and her insistence in
this thread to classify me with a racist like Al further confirmed her
insincerity as a "Christian" -- something I was willing to give her more
benefit of the doubt about despite the acrimony and schism she openly
supports in her church.

>> Sootikin/Karen
>> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
>> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
>> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>
> When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?

She wrote this about Derek and Belinda while posting as "Glorfindel" on
31 Aug 2006 (and because nobody wished HER a happy anniversary):

Except for being an adulterous whore.

But then, Derek and his slut fit each other -- no wonder
they stay together. She tries to excuse herself by
saying she was "only 18."

Want me to give you the rest of the posts from that nasty thread where
she incessantly -- and without ANY provocation! -- spoke ill of Belinda
on the occasion of her and Derek's anniversary? You have the name and
date if you want to Google it yourself. Want more?

<snip>



1Ti 1:15 -This is a faithful saying,
and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
of whom I am chief.

On May 2, 6:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > I'm extremely honest with myself
>
> No you're not, you hide from the truth by becoming non-responsive and
> evasive when an idea threatens to undermine this "equality for animals"
> idael that you have allowed yourself to become enamoured with.

Not at all. I'm never non-responsive or evasive. Okay, so I pay for a
drug whose manufacturers unfortunately used some animal tests during
the research and development phase many years ago. I have no
alternative short of exposing myself to a significant risk of having
another psychotic episode. I don't see how equal consideration for all
sentient beings necessarily entails that this behaviour of mine is
seriously morally flawed. Even if it did, I certainly don't see how
that undermines equal consideration for all sentient beings, or that
Ball and chico are entitled to morally crticize me for failing to live
up to this exacting standard, when they themselves do absolutely
nothing by way of reducing their contribution to the suffering in this
world.

On May 3, 2:20 am, chico > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 1, 10:13 pm, chico > wrote:
> >> Rupert, who's pro-bestiality even if it includes conditioning, wrote:
>
> >> This summarizes your worldview:
>
> >>> I really don't care.
> >> But yet you continue trying to jump into the fray, trying to stake out
> >> some kind of moral high ground, and only making an ass of yourself.
>
> > I'm not making an ass of myself.
>
> Don't sell yourself short, Rupie. You'd making a huge ass of yourself.
>
> > Your previous behaviour shows that
> > you are not fit to converse with decent people. And yet you
> > pontificate about what a follower of Christ would do. It's enough to
> > make anyone want to throw up. You bicker at Karen about things that
> > happened years ago,
>
> Last year.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
> >>> Having a moral high ground
> >> You're incapable of having one.
>
> >>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
> >>> I don't know.
> >> Then don't drag him into the discussion, twit.
>
> > Why not?
>
> Because those are the issues at hand: schism and character. Karen has
> caused the former has none of the latter.
>

You originally defined the issues as "vile names" and threats of
violence.

> >>> This is the man whom you once said was my "better".
> >> He still is.
>
> > Very amusing. So, tell me, how is it that when Karen calls people vile
> > names and makes threats of violence it reflects poorly on her, but
> > when Jon does the same he is a fine upstanding citizen?
>
> Karen does it while pretending to be Christian

Yes, and you hypocritically pontificate about how Christ said to hate
your brother is to hate God while failing to extend the most minimal
amount of decency to your fellow human-brings. I don't care who
identifies as Christian and who doesn't. What I care about is basic
decency. Jon clearly fails to meet the most minimal standards of basic
decency, and there are no doubt many other areas of life in which my
behaviour is better than his, yet you absurdly claim he is my
"better".

> -- she uses religious
> pretexts for AR, she uses religion as a crutch after she's dished out
> shit at others and if they dish anything back at her. Re-read the thread
> from the start where she mentioned Al and me and intimated that she's
> above reproach for the way she's treated others. And her treatment goes
> beyond the stuff last year when she called the Nashes names, it extends
> to real life with the abandonment of her son, etc.
>
> To the best of my recollection, Jon has never pontificated about
> religion to support his views, hypocritically suggested others do unto
> him as he's not done unto them, etc.
>

Doesn't alter the fact that he's a contemptible low-life and a pitiful
excuse for a human being.

> You're a clueless **** when it comes to making analogies. These two
> people aren't comparable. One pretends to be pious but is one of the
> most self-absorbed, impious people I've ever encountered. She has no
> substance. The other one may rub (muddle-headed) people the wrong way

Don't use euphemisms. He behaves in an absolutely vile manner to just
about everyone he encounters on usenet. There is no excuse for it.

> but appears to lead a fairly decent life

His behaviour on usenet is not consistent with a decent life. Whether
he behaves with minimal decency in other areas of his life is
something we can only speculate about.

> without cloaking himself in
> religion or hiding behind it. He has the substance she lacks. She talks
> the talk, he walks the walk.
>
> >>> It seems to me you're a
> >>> bit selective in your criticism of people.
> >> Especially silly little ******s like you who think it's wrong for people
> >> to eat animals but okay for people to molest them.
>
> > Your position that factory-farming is okay
>
> My position is that "factory farming" is hyperbole.

Well, it's not. It's a perfectly reasonable descriptive term.

> Farming has always
> been about business, it's always been profit-driven, it's always been
> about maximizing yields from the least amount of inputs.
>

And you think that it's okay for farmers to do whatever they like to
animals in the pursuit of this goal, but that mutually desired sexual
contact between humans and animals is wrong. It's a joke.

> > but mutually desired sexual
> > contact between nonhumans and humans isn't is a joke.
>
> I take issue with how mutual the desire is in cases involving
> conditioning. You have no problem with humans conditioning animals for
> their own sexual gratification.

Don't put words in my mouth. I can't tell you what my position is on
that issue until you've explained what you mean by "conditioning".
I've already said negative reinforcement is not appropriate.

> I do.
>

Well, that's all very nice to worry about whether the animal's
autonomy is being respected, but it's a bit bizarre in the context of
your belief that we may do absolutely anything we like to animals in
order to provide ourselves with the food we like to eat.

> >>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >>>> yours?
> >>> Because you'd be a better person if you did
> >> In your opinion -- the same one that thinks eating meat is immoral but
> >> buggery with children and animals is acceptable.
>
> > Yep, that's right.
>
> Pervert.
>

"Pervert" is a silly, meaningless, swear-word, and it's especially
silly to use it in response to the expression of an opinion. You have
no way of knowing what my sexual proclivities are and whether you
would regard them as "perverted".

> > My moral opinions are a lot
>
> ...of BS. You're amoral.
>

They're a lot better thought-out than yours. For one thing, they don't
rest on blind belief in the authority of scriptures written thousands
of years ago. You don't have to agree with them, you can try to
formulate arguments against them if you like, but to claim I am amoral
is utterly absurd.

>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>> Ridiculous.
> >> You sure are.
>
> >>>>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
> >>> I don't think
> >> Established.
>
> >>> the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> >>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
> >> The "sincerity" and "desire" of the conditioned or the conditioner? A
> >> conditioned response is hardly voluntary,
>
> > Why not?
>
> http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychology/unit_6.htm
>
> > Tell me what you mean by "conditioning". Do you think humans
> > would be able to function in modern society without conditioning?
>
> Don't change the subject. The issue is conditioning in human:animal
> sexual relations.
>

It's not changing the subject. I'm asking you to illustrate your
understanding of the concept of "conditioning" for me and to expand on
your views about the morality of conditioning.

> >> particularly if negative
> >> reinforcement has been used
>
> > Negative reinforcement for failure to be sexually compliant is not
> > morally permissible.
>
> Yet it happens when animals are restrained or confined or given other
> negative reinforcement for not acceding to a perverted human who desires
> sexual relations with it.

So that's morally impermissible.

> And even positive reinforcement should be
> morally impermissible because the animal's specific desire is the reward
> or praise, not to be molested.
>

No, I don't accept that. If the animal freely decides that getting the
reward or praise is worth it, what's the problem with that?

> >> and its threat hangs over the conditioned
> >> party. And why cut any slack to people who manipulate animals for their
> >> own perverted pleasure? That's not what the animal chooses to do -- the
> >> animal wants reward, not sex.
>
> > What the animals' motives are don't undermine the voluntary nature of
> > its action.
>
> BS.
>

Well, that's really convincing. What are your motives in engaging in
paid work? Does the fact that the money is the main motivation
undermine the voluntary nature of your action?

> > I don't claim any great insight
>
> No kidding.
>
> >> You're sicker than you think.
>
> >>> I
> >>> have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
> >>> animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
> >>> is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists.
> >> Other than confused male animals mounting menstruating women, tell me
> >> when "genuine desire exists" on the part of animals.
>
> > I'm not an expert
>
> Yet you had to stick your nose in and pretend you were.
>

Stop talking nonsense. You were the one who started this conversation.
You wanted to know what my views were, and I'm telling you.

> >>> I have never
> >>> made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.
> >> Why are you starting now?
>
> > I'm not.
>
> You keep butting in.

You brought up the topic of bestiality.

> How many sheep have you banged?
>

Imbecile.

On May 2, 5:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> low time value rupie blabbered:
>
> > On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >>>>>>>>>> son,
> >>>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
> >>>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> >>>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> >>>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> >>>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> >>>>>>>> like her.
> >>>>>>> Okay
> >>>>>> She loathes her son.
> >>>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
> >>>>> myself.
> >>>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
> >>>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
> >>>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
> >>>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
> >>>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
> >>>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
> >>>>>> will be *** like her.
> >>>>> Don't see a problem with that.
> >>>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
> >>>> Sootikin.
> >>> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
> >>> being ***?
> >> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
> >> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
> >> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
> >> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
> >> her. She wants it because it would make her son
> >> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
> >> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
> >> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
>
> > So you say.
>
> Read her posts on it, shitbag. It's obvious.
>
> >>> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
> >> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
> >> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
>
> >> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
> >> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
> >> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
> >> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
>
> >> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
> >> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
>
> > No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
> > as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.
>
> No, it wasn't.
>

Your delusions that you can read my mind are quite amusing.

> >>>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
> >>>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
> >>>>>> isn't Christian.
> >>>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
> >>>>> sickening.
> >>>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
> >>> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
> >> ipse dixit
>
> >>>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
> >>>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
> >>>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
> >>>> behavior.
> >>> No, I'm afraid that's you
> >> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
>
> >>>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
> >>>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
> >>>> usenet.
> >>> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
> >> You are entirely self absorbed.
>
> > What was that about "ipse dixit"?
>
> You practically *scream* self absorption.
>

This is not the case, and if it were, what you said would still be an
ipse dixit.

> >>>>> You once told me to
> >>>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
> >>>> More than sufficient provocation.
> >>>> Did you do it? Why not?
> >>> Contemptible slimeball.
> >> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
>
> >>>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
> >>>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
> >>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
> >>> [...]
> >>>> You have no standing either, rupie.
> >>> No, that's you,
> >> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
> >>>>>>>>> At what age?
> >>>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
> >>>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
> >>>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
> >>> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
> >>> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
> >> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
> >> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
> >> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
>
> > Well, that's all as may be.
>
> It's fact, rupie. Sootikin/Karen isn't concerned with
> her own happiness, but rather with augmenting her son's
> unhappiness, which - perversely, psychotically -
> contributes to Karen's happiness. That's sick; ****ed up.
>

How about the way you spend your life trying to cause people you meet
on usenet unhappiness in order to contribute to your own happiness?
What about that, eh?

> >>>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> >>>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
> >>>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >>>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >>>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >>>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
> >>>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
> >>>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
> >>>> what self-absorption does to a person.
> >>> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
> >> Done, many times over.
>
> > Ridiculous
>
> **** off, rupie.
>
> >>>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
> >>>>>>> I don't think
> >>>>>> I've noticed.
> >>>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
> >>>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >>>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >>>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >>>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
> >>>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
> >>>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
> >>>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> >>>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> >>>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
> >>>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
> >>>>>> in her church
> >>>>> I really don't care.
> >>>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
> >>>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
> >>> You're a bit confused here,
> >> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>
> > Yes,
>
> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>
> >>>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
> >>>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
> >>>> No, that's not so.
> >>> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
> >> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
> >> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
> >> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
> >> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
>
> > Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
> > organization is?
>
> I think that's pretty obvious, rupie. Is sharia law
> part of the fundamental character of Australia, you
> ****?

That's a different issue. That's about the limits on what the state
can morally do. The state is a special case because you can't get
universal consent to be governed by the state. In the case of
organizations like churches, you can get the universal consent of
members to abide by the rules of the organization, and if they don't
like it, they can leave. It's a different issue.

> Would someone advocating the establishment of
> sharia for Australia be going against the fundamental
> character of the place, rupie, you ****?
>

That's a silly analogy.

> You shouldn't even bother answering that, rupie -
> you'll disgrace yourself.
>

For someone who thinks they're a libertarian not to see why that's a
flawed analogy is pretty funny.

> >>>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
> >>>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
> >>>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
> >>>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
> >>>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
> >>> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
> >> False.
>
> > Pffffffft.
>
> Incoherent blabber.
>

No, just an expression of amusement.

> >>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
> >>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
> >>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
> >>>>> Who has she hurt?
> >>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
> >>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
> >> She spilled it her for one and all.
>
> > So what?
>
> So, rupie, you ****, she voluntarily made it our business.
>

No, she didn't. The fact that she voluntarily told you doesn't make it
any more decent for you to rub her nose in it for years afterwards.

> >> Sootikin/Karen
> >> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
> >> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
> >> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>
> > When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?
>
> She attacks chico's, Derek's and my character every
> chance she gets. It's pure bile.
>

You spend your life attacking other people's character on usenet, so
you're hardly in a position to complain. Attacks on your character are
well-deserved. But, anyway, can you give me just one example of when
Karen has attacked someone else's character?

> >>>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
> >>>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> >>>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> >>>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
> >>>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> >>>>>>>>> "harmful"?
> >>>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
> >>>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> >>>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
> >>>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
> >>>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
> >>>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
> >>>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
> >>>>> to listen.
> >>>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
> >>>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
> >>>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
> >>>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
> >>>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
> >>> Fine.
> >> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
> >> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
> >> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...
>
> WELL, rupie, you stupid ****?
>

Well what? What's your point? I'm not the least bit interested.

>
>
> >>>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
> >>>>>> or reject it.
> >>>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
> >>>> St. Bede's did.
> >>> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
> >> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
>
> > Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.
>
> >>>>> You seem to be upset that
> >>>>> they've chosen not to do that.
> >>>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
> >>>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
> >>>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
> >>> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
> >>> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
> >> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
> >> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
> >> preposterous.
>
> > No, Rudy, you have absolutely no clue about what I do
>
> I know you, rupie. You're a passivist. You do nothing.
>

Silly fool.

> >>>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
> >>>>> Having a moral high ground
> >>>> You don't.
> >>> Every minimally decent person
> >> That lets you out.
>
> > Stop projecting.
>
> You're not minimally decent, rupie, you massive
> hypocrite and liar.
>

I am a morally good person. You are a disgrace.

> >>>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
> >>>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
> >>>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
> >>>> Implicitly, she did.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
>
> > Imbecile.
>
> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat. Two in a row!
>
> >>>>>>> instead of listing the
> >>>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> >>>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
> >>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
> >>>>> I don't know.
> >>>> You don't know anything.
> >>> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
> >> No.
>
> >>>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
> >>>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
> >>>>> credibility.
> >>>> You don't know anything, rupie.
> >>>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
> >>>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> >>>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
> >>>>>> I meet my standards,
> >>>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
> >>>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes.
>
> >>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >>>>>> yours?
> >>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
> >>>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
> >>>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
> >>>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
> >>> Er, no,
> >> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
> >> hoc temporizing.
>
> > My moral standards are
>
> non existent. You are fully immersed in ad hoc expediency.
>

Imbecile.

> >>>>>> **** off.
> >>>>> No, you **** off.
> >>>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
> >>>>>>> There's nothing wrong
> >>>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> >>>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> >>>>>>> about casting the first stone.
> >>>>>> It was relevant.
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
> >>>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
> >>> No, it doesn't.
> >> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
> >> disqualifying factor.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> >>>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
> >>>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> >>>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
> >>>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
> >>>>> No, you didn't.
> >>>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
> >>> He didn't give any good reason.
> >> He did.
>
> > No, he did not,
>
> He did.
>
> >>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>>> Ridiculous.
> >>>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
> >>>> do that a lot.
> >>> Your delusions
> >> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
> >> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
>
> > Rudy, you know perfectly well that
>
> I know perfectly well that, when you blabber a one-word
> answer, rupie, it is a concession of failure.
>

No.

> >>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
> >>>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> >>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
> >>>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
> >>>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
> >>> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
> >> I do know about it, rupie.
>
> > Very interesting.
>
> Up to a point, rupie.
>
> >>> Either the desire
> >>> exists or it doesn't.
> >> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
> >> desire.
>
> > Why not?
>
> The animal *never* would have come upon it naturally.
>

How do you know? Are you some sort of expert on animal behaviour?

Anyway, it doesn't address my question. You were talking about the
"legitimacy" of the desire. What's the foundation for your claim about
that?

> >>>>>>>> How many of your medications were
> >>>>>>>> tested on animals,
> >>>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
> >>>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
> >>>> Evasion noted, rupie.
> >>> No evasion,
> >> Evasion, rupie; noted.
>
> > Nope, no evasion.
>
> Evasion; noted.
>
> >>>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
> >>>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
> >>>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
> >>>> fire on students and professors.
> >>> We were talking about medications I take regularly.
> >> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
> >> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
> >> of your consumption of them.
>
> > He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
> > that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly
>
> No, you stupidly read that into it. It wasn't there.
> It's your youth, rupie - you're overmatched.
>

Um, yeah, okay, Ball, so he was saying "Count up all the drugs you've
ever taken in your life that were tested on animals". And the fact
that I can't see this means I'm overmatched. I see. Very interesting.

I'm not that young, you know. How old are you?

> >> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
> >> queers any bullshit about "ar".
>
> > No, it doesn't,
>
> It does, rupie. Sorry (well, not really.)
>
> >>>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >>>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
> >>>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> >>>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> >>>>>>> medication in the near future.
> >>>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> You should, because you are one.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.
>
> > Get a life.
>
> Have one, thanks. You should try it.

Rupert wrote:
> On May 2, 5:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> low time value rupie blabbered:
>>
>>> On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>>>>>>>>>> son,
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>>>>>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>>>>>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>>>>>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>>>>>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>>>>>>>>>> like her.
>>>>>>>>> Okay
>>>>>>>> She loathes her son.
>>>>>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
>>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
>>>>>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
>>>>>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>>>>>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
>>>>>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
>>>>>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
>>>>>>>> will be *** like her.
>>>>>>> Don't see a problem with that.
>>>>>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
>>>>>> Sootikin.
>>>>> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
>>>>> being ***?
>>>> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
>>>> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
>>>> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
>>>> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
>>>> her. She wants it because it would make her son
>>>> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
>>>> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
>>>> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
>>> So you say.
>> Read her posts on it, shitbag. It's obvious.
>>
>>>>> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
>>>> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
>>>> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
>>>> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
>>>> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
>>>> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
>>>> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
>>>> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
>>>> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
>>> No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
>>> as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>
> Your delusions

No delusions.


>>>>>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
>>>>>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
>>>>>>>> isn't Christian.
>>>>>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
>>>>>>> sickening.
>>>>>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>>>>> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
>>>> ipse dixit
>>>>>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
>>>>>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
>>>>>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>> No, I'm afraid that's you
>>>> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
>>>>>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
>>>>>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
>>>>>> usenet.
>>>>> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
>>>> You are entirely self absorbed.
>>> What was that about "ipse dixit"?
>> You practically *scream* self absorption.
>>
>
> This is not the case,

It is the case.


>>>>>>> You once told me to
>>>>>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
>>>>>> More than sufficient provocation.
>>>>>> Did you do it? Why not?
>>>>> Contemptible slimeball.
>>>> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
>>>>>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
>>>>>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> You have no standing either, rupie.
>>>>> No, that's you,
>>>> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
>>>>>>>>>>> At what age?
>>>>>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
>>>>>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
>>>>>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>>>>> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
>>>>> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
>>>> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
>>>> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
>>>> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
>>> Well, that's all as may be.
>> It's fact, rupie. Sootikin/Karen isn't concerned with
>> her own happiness, but rather with augmenting her son's
>> unhappiness, which - perversely, psychotically -
>> contributes to Karen's happiness. That's sick; ****ed up.
>>
>
> How about the way you spend your life trying to cause people you meet
> on usenet unhappiness

Not so.


>>>>>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>>>>>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>>>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>>>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>>>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>>>>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>>>>>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
>>>>>> what self-absorption does to a person.
>>>>> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
>>>> Done, many times over.
>>> Ridiculous
>> **** off, rupie.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
>>>>>>>>> I don't think
>>>>>>>> I've noticed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>>>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>>>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>>>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>>>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
>>>>>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>>>>>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
>>>>>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
>>>>>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>>>>>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
>>>>>>>> in her church
>>>>>>> I really don't care.
>>>>>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
>>>>>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>>>>> You're a bit confused here,
>>>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>>> Yes,
>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>>
>>>>>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
>>>>>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
>>>>>> No, that's not so.
>>>>> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
>>>> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
>>>> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
>>>> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
>>>> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
>>> Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
>>> organization is?
>> I think that's pretty obvious, rupie. Is sharia law
>> part of the fundamental character of Australia, you
>> ****?
>
> That's a different issue.

Evasion noted.


> That's about the limits on what the state
> can morally do.

Irrelevant. An attempt to impose sharia on your
country would still be an attempt to change an
organization that you are defending when Sootikin is
attempting something similar in her church.


> The state is a special case because

False.


>> Would someone advocating the establishment of
>> sharia for Australia be going against the fundamental
>> character of the place, rupie, you ****?
>>
>
> That's a silly analogy.

It's not. It's a good analogy, and it had its intended
effect of tying you up in knots.


>> You shouldn't even bother answering that, rupie -
>> you'll disgrace yourself.
>>
>
> For someone who

You disgraced yourself.


>>>>>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
>>>>>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
>>>>>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
>>>>>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
>>>>>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>>>>> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
>>>> False.
>>> Pffffffft.
>> Incoherent blabber.
>>
>
> No, just

Incoherent blabber. You do it a lot.


>>>>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>>>>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>>>>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>>>>>> Who has she hurt?
>>>>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>>>>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
>>>> She spilled it her for one and all.
>>> So what?
>> So, rupie, you ****, she voluntarily made it our business.
>>
>
> No, she didn't.

Yes, she did.


>>>> Sootikin/Karen
>>>> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
>>>> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
>>>> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>>> When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?
>> She attacks chico's, Derek's and my character every
>> chance she gets. It's pure bile.
>>
>
> You spend your life attacking other people's character on usenet,

Only when they reveal bad character. They deserve it.


>>>>>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>>>>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>>>>>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>>>>>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
>>>>>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>>>>>>>>>> "harmful"?
>>>>>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>>>>>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
>>>>>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>>>>>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
>>>>>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>>>>>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
>>>>>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
>>>>>>> to listen.
>>>>>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
>>>>>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
>>>>>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
>>>>>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
>>>>>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>>>>> Fine.
>>>> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
>>>> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
>>>> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...
>> WELL, rupie, you stupid ****?
>>
>
> Well what? What's your point? I'm not the least bit interested.

Liar.


>>>>>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
>>>>>>>> or reject it.
>>>>>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
>>>>>> St. Bede's did.
>>>>> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
>>>> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
>>> Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.
>>>>>>> You seem to be upset that
>>>>>>> they've chosen not to do that.
>>>>>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
>>>>>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
>>>>>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>>>>> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
>>>>> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
>>>> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
>>>> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
>>>> preposterous.
>>> No, Rudy, you have absolutely no clue about what I do
>> I know you, rupie. You're a passivist. You do nothing.
>>
>
> Silly fool.

Stupid lying passivist.


>>>>>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>>>>>> Having a moral high ground
>>>>>> You don't.
>>>>> Every minimally decent person
>>>> That lets you out.
>>> Stop projecting.
>> You're not minimally decent, rupie, you massive
>> hypocrite and liar.
>>
>
> I am a morally good person.

You're a filthy amoral shitbag.


>>>>>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>>>>>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>>>>>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
>>>>>> Implicitly, she did.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
>>> Imbecile.
>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat. Two in a row!
>>
>>>>>>>>> instead of listing the
>>>>>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
>>>>>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
>>>>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>>>>>> I don't know.
>>>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
>>>> No.
>>>>>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
>>>>>>> credibility.
>>>>>> You don't know anything, rupie.
>>>>>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
>>>>>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
>>>>>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>>>>>>>> I meet my standards,
>>>>>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
>>>>>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>>>>> No.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>>>>>> yours?
>>>>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
>>>>>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
>>>>>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
>>>>>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>>>>> Er, no,
>>>> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
>>>> hoc temporizing.
>>> My moral standards are
>> non existent. You are fully immersed in ad hoc expediency.
>>
>
> Imbecile.

Filthy self-absorbed shitbag.


>>>>>>>> **** off.
>>>>>>> No, you **** off.
>>>>>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong
>>>>>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
>>>>>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
>>>>>>>>> about casting the first stone.
>>>>>>>> It was relevant.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
>>>>>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
>>>> disqualifying factor.
>>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
>>>>>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>>>>>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>>>>>>> No, you didn't.
>>>>>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>>>>> He didn't give any good reason.
>>>> He did.
>>> No, he did not,
>> He did.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
>>>>>> do that a lot.
>>>>> Your delusions
>>>> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
>>>> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
>>> Rudy, you know perfectly well that
>> I know perfectly well that, when you blabber a one-word
>> answer, rupie, it is a concession of failure.
>>
>
> No.

There's another!


>>>>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>>>>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>>>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>>>>>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>>>>> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
>>>> I do know about it, rupie.
>>> Very interesting.
>> Up to a point, rupie.
>>
>>>>> Either the desire
>>>>> exists or it doesn't.
>>>> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
>>>> desire.
>>> Why not?
>> The animal *never* would have come upon it naturally.
>>
>
> How do you know?

That's why it had to be conditioned in the first place,
****.


> Anyway, it doesn't address my question. You were talking about the
> "legitimacy" of the desire. What's the foundation for your claim about
> that?

If it's conditioned, it isn't the animal's legitimate
desire.

****wit.


>>>>>>>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>>>>>>>> tested on animals,
>>>>>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
>>>>>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>>>>>> Evasion noted, rupie.
>>>>> No evasion,
>>>> Evasion, rupie; noted.
>>> Nope, no evasion.
>> Evasion; noted.
>>
>>>>>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
>>>>>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
>>>>>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
>>>>>> fire on students and professors.
>>>>> We were talking about medications I take regularly.
>>>> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
>>>> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
>>>> of your consumption of them.
>>> He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
>>> that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly
>> No, you stupidly read that into it. It wasn't there.
>> It's your youth, rupie - you're overmatched.
>>
>
> Um, yeah,

Yeah.


> I'm not that young, you know. How old are you?

More than old enough. You're a punk.


>>>> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
>>>> queers any bullshit about "ar".
>>> No, it doesn't,
>> It does, rupie. Sorry (well, not really.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>>>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>>>>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>>>>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>>>>>>>> medication in the near future.
>>>>>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> You should, because you are one.
>>>>> No.
>>>> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.
>>> Get a life.
>> Have one, thanks. You should try it.
>
>

Rupert wrote:

> On May 3, 2:20 am, chico > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>> Rupert, who's pro-bestiality even if it includes conditioning, wrote:
>>>> This summarizes your worldview:
>>>>> I really don't care.
>>>> But yet you continue trying to jump into the fray, trying to stake out
>>>> some kind of moral high ground, and only making an ass of yourself.
>>> I'm not making an ass of myself.
>> Don't sell yourself short, Rupie. You'd making a huge ass of yourself.
>>
>>> Your previous behaviour shows that
>>> you are not fit to converse with decent people. And yet you
>>> pontificate about what a follower of Christ would do. It's enough to
>>> make anyone want to throw up. You bicker at Karen about things that
>>> happened years ago,
>> Last year.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>>>> Having a moral high ground
>>>> You're incapable of having one.
>>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>>>> I don't know.
>>>> Then don't drag him into the discussion, twit.
>>> Why not?
>> Because those are the issues at hand: schism and character. Karen has
>> caused the former has none of the latter.
>
> You originally defined the issues as

Karen's hypocrisy. She's the one making statements about forgiveness and
the character of others, and I called her out on it.

>>>>> This is the man whom you once said was my "better".
>>>> He still is.
>>> Very amusing. So, tell me, how is it that when Karen calls people vile
>>> names and makes threats of violence it reflects poorly on her, but
>>> when Jon does the same he is a fine upstanding citizen?
>> Karen does it while pretending to be Christian
>
> Yes

End of argument.

> and you hypocritically pontificate about how Christ said to hate
> your brother is to hate God while failing to extend the most minimal
> amount of decency to your fellow human-brings.

I extend plenty of decency to others, you ignorant ass. Go to ARCE and
read the threads in which I apologized to Karen. Not once, TWICE. Then
read her replies today -- nearly three weeks later -- in finally
addressing the matter. Some people ultimately prove to be unworthy of
such efforts of being nice. Karen proved herself unworthy when she chose
to refer to me the way she did in a post about a fat racist at ARCEO
after I'd apologized to her *and* left her alone.

Why don't you hold HER to some "minimal standard of decency," asshole?

> I don't care who
> identifies as Christian and who doesn't. What I care about is basic
> decency.

You fall short of your own standards then.

> Jon clearly fails to meet the most minimal standards of basic
> decency,

In what way? He's everything Karen isn't, and you can only try to fault
him on his style -- not on his substance.

> and there are no doubt many other areas of life in which my
> behaviour is better than his,

Even with your own shitty benchmarks, you apparently think pretty highly
of yourself. Smug turd.

> yet you absurdly claim he is my "better".

No, I *correctly* claim he's your better. He's outmatched you every time
you've tried to take him on.

>> -- she uses religious
>> pretexts for AR, she uses religion as a crutch after she's dished out
>> shit at others and if they dish anything back at her. Re-read the thread
>> from the start where she mentioned Al and me and intimated that she's
>> above reproach for the way she's treated others. And her treatment goes
>> beyond the stuff last year when she called the Nashes names, it extends
>> to real life with the abandonment of her son, etc.
>>
>> To the best of my recollection, Jon has never pontificated about
>> religion to support his views, hypocritically suggested others do unto
>> him as he's not done unto them, etc.
>
> Doesn't alter the fact

Not a fact, Rupture. You're the one who raised his name in comparison to
a woman who's been married multiple times, who abandoned her son when
he was young, who joined some odd medieval dress-up commune, who ran off
to California to continue her slide into debauchery, who attended
meetings and -- at least check -- continues to support a pro-pedophilia
organization, who's worked for division and schism throughout her
church, and who's done everything UNimaginable to marginalize herself,
her beliefs, her behavior, etc.

There's *no* comparison: Jon is a better, more upstanding member of
society than Karen.

> a contemptible low-life and a pitiful
> excuse for a human being.

Sounds like how another person described Karen earlier today at ARCE.

>> You're a clueless **** when it comes to making analogies. These two
>> people aren't comparable. One pretends to be pious but is one of the
>> most self-absorbed, impious people I've ever encountered. She has no
>> substance. The other one may rub (muddle-headed) people the wrong way
>
> Don't

You don't get to tell me what to say, write, or think.

>> but appears to lead a fairly decent life
>
> His behaviour on usenet is not

....the issue. The issue is Karen, whom you're stupidly defending.

>> without cloaking himself in
>> religion or hiding behind it. He has the substance she lacks. She talks
>> the talk, he walks the walk.
>>
>>>>> It seems to me you're a
>>>>> bit selective in your criticism of people.
>>>> Especially silly little ******s like you who think it's wrong for people
>>>> to eat animals but okay for people to molest them.
>>> Your position that factory-farming is okay
>> My position is that "factory farming" is hyperbole.
>
> Well, it's not.

Yes, it is.

>> Farming has always
>> been about business, it's always been profit-driven, it's always been
>> about maximizing yields from the least amount of inputs.
>
> And you think that it's okay for farmers to do whatever they like to
> animals in the pursuit of this goal,

"Whatever they like" is based on their bottom lines, which means turning
out products of decent quality, which means maintaining the health of
their livestock. So yes, I approve.

> but that mutually desired

It isn't mutual if it's conditioned. Conditioning isn't required for
consent -- conditioning is required where consent is either not present
or not likely.

>>> but mutually desired sexual
>>> contact between nonhumans and humans isn't is a joke.
>> I take issue with how mutual the desire is in cases involving
>> conditioning. You have no problem with humans conditioning animals for
>> their own sexual gratification.
>
> Don't put words

You're the one defending bestiality.

>> I do.
>
> Well, that's all very nice

Bestiality isn't nice, nor is conditioning children. Are you -- like
your sycophant Karen -- also pro-pedophilia?

> to worry about whether the animal's
> autonomy is being respected, but it's a bit bizarre in the context of
> your belief that we may do absolutely anything we like to animals in
> order to provide ourselves with the food we like to eat.

"Absolutely anything" within the framework of animal welfare laws, sound
livestock management practices, etc.

>>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>>>> yours?
>>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did
>>>> In your opinion -- the same one that thinks eating meat is immoral but
>>>> buggery with children and animals is acceptable.
>>> Yep, that's right.
>> Pervert.
>
> "Pervert" is a silly, meaningless, swear-word

No, it's meaningful and suits you quite well.

> You have
> no way of knowing what my sexual proclivities are and whether you
> would regard them as "perverted".

I know that you defend bestiality at the first sign of the word, and I
know you do so because you're a pervert.

>>> My moral opinions are a lot
>> ...of BS. You're amoral.
>
> They're

....bs.

> a lot better thought-out than yours. For one thing, they don't
> rest on blind belief in the authority of scriptures written thousands
> of years ago.

Whose does?

> You don't have to agree with them

I don't.

> you can try to
> formulate arguments against them if you like, but to claim I am amoral
> is utterly absurd.

Wrong, it's utterly true.

>>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>> You sure are.
>>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>>>> I don't think
>>>> Established.
>>>>> the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>>>> The "sincerity" and "desire" of the conditioned or the conditioner? A
>>>> conditioned response is hardly voluntary,
>>> Why not?
>> http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychology/unit_6.htm
>>
>>> Tell me what you mean by "conditioning". Do you think humans
>>> would be able to function in modern society without conditioning?
>> Don't change the subject. The issue is conditioning in human:animal
>> sexual relations.
>
> It's not changing the subject.

Liar.

> If the animal freely decides

Then it wouldn't require conditioning in the first place, would it.

>>>> and its threat hangs over the conditioned
>>>> party. And why cut any slack to people who manipulate animals for their
>>>> own perverted pleasure? That's not what the animal chooses to do -- the
>>>> animal wants reward, not sex.
>>> What the animals' motives are don't undermine the voluntary nature of
>>> its action.
>> BS.
>
> Well, that's really convincing. What are your motives in engaging in
> paid work? Does the fact that the money is the main motivation
> undermine the voluntary nature of your action?

Such payment is based on contract -- free mutual assent, not on my
volunteering to do certain tasks and not on any form of conditioning.

>>> I don't claim any great insight
>> No kidding.
>>
>>>> You're sicker than you think.
>>>>> I
>>>>> have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
>>>>> animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
>>>>> is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists.
>>>> Other than confused male animals mounting menstruating women, tell me
>>>> when "genuine desire exists" on the part of animals.
>>> I'm not an expert
>> Yet you had to stick your nose in and pretend you were.
>
> Stop

You had to stick your nose in and pretend you were.

>>>>> I have never
>>>>> made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.
>>>> Why are you starting now?
>>> I'm not.
>> You keep butting in.
>
> You brought up the topic of bestiality.

Yes, and you seem to pipe in whenever I do. Stepping on toes? Hooves? Claws?

*baaaa-aaaa-aaaaa*

>> How many sheep have you banged?
>
> Imbecile.

Can't count that high?

On May 3, 12:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 2, 5:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> low time value rupie blabbered:
>
> >>> On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >>>>>>>>>>>> son,
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
> >>>>>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> >>>>>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> >>>>>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> >>>>>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> >>>>>>>>>> like her.
> >>>>>>>>> Okay
> >>>>>>>> She loathes her son.
> >>>>>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
> >>>>>>> myself.
> >>>>>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
> >>>>>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
> >>>>>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
> >>>>>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
> >>>>>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
> >>>>>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
> >>>>>>>> will be *** like her.
> >>>>>>> Don't see a problem with that.
> >>>>>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
> >>>>>> Sootikin.
> >>>>> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
> >>>>> being ***?
> >>>> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
> >>>> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
> >>>> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
> >>>> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
> >>>> her. She wants it because it would make her son
> >>>> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
> >>>> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
> >>>> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
> >>> So you say.
> >> Read her posts on it, shitbag. It's obvious.
>
> >>>>> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
> >>>> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
> >>>> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
> >>>> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
> >>>> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
> >>>> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
> >>>> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
> >>>> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
> >>>> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
> >>> No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
> >>> as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.
> >> No, it wasn't.
>
> > Your delusions
>
> No delusions.
>

So you actually can read my mind, can you? How interesting. How do you
do it - with waves of Plutonian energy?

> >>>>>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
> >>>>>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
> >>>>>>>> isn't Christian.
> >>>>>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
> >>>>>>> sickening.
> >>>>>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
> >>>>> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
> >>>> ipse dixit
> >>>>>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
> >>>>>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
> >>>>>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
> >>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>> No, I'm afraid that's you
> >>>> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
> >>>>>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
> >>>>>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
> >>>>>> usenet.
> >>>>> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
> >>>> You are entirely self absorbed.
> >>> What was that about "ipse dixit"?
> >> You practically *scream* self absorption.
>
> > This is not the case,
>
> It is the case.
>

Then it should be possible for you to provide just one iota of
evidence that I am self-absorbed in the least.

> >>>>>>> You once told me to
> >>>>>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
> >>>>>> More than sufficient provocation.
> >>>>>> Did you do it? Why not?
> >>>>> Contemptible slimeball.
> >>>> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
> >>>>>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
> >>>>>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
> >>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>>>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>> You have no standing either, rupie.
> >>>>> No, that's you,
> >>>> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
> >>>>>>>>>>> At what age?
> >>>>>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
> >>>>>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
> >>>>>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
> >>>>> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
> >>>>> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
> >>>> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
> >>>> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
> >>>> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
> >>> Well, that's all as may be.
> >> It's fact, rupie. Sootikin/Karen isn't concerned with
> >> her own happiness, but rather with augmenting her son's
> >> unhappiness, which - perversely, psychotically -
> >> contributes to Karen's happiness. That's sick; ****ed up.
>
> > How about the way you spend your life trying to cause people you meet
> > on usenet unhappiness
>
> Not so.
>

Of course it's so. To borrow a phrase from you, it's not in serious or
rational dispute.

> >>>>>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> >>>>>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >>>>>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
> >>>>>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
> >>>>>> what self-absorption does to a person.
> >>>>> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
> >>>> Done, many times over.
> >>> Ridiculous
> >> **** off, rupie.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
> >>>>>>>>> I don't think
> >>>>>>>> I've noticed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >>>>>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
> >>>>>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> >>>>>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> >>>>>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
> >>>>>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
> >>>>>>>> in her church
> >>>>>>> I really don't care.
> >>>>>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
> >>>>>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
> >>>>> You're a bit confused here,
> >>>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
> >>> Yes,
> >> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>
> >>>>>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
> >>>>>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
> >>>>>> No, that's not so.
> >>>>> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
> >>>> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
> >>>> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
> >>>> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
> >>>> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
> >>> Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
> >>> organization is?
> >> I think that's pretty obvious, rupie. Is sharia law
> >> part of the fundamental character of Australia, you
> >> ****?
>
> > That's a different issue.
>
> Evasion noted.
>

No evasion at all. I immediately went on to explain why your analogy
was patently flawed, and you farcically still didn't get it.

> > That's about the limits on what the state
> > can morally do.
>
> Irrelevant. An attempt to impose sharia on your
> country would still be an attempt to change an
> organization that you are defending when Sootikin is
> attempting something similar in her church.
>

An attempt to impose sharia on my country would violate the rights of
its citizens. Universal consent to sharia law would not be
forthcoming. If the attempt were successful, the citizens of Australia
would either have to live under sharia law or leave the country. That
would violate their rights. No-one has the right to dictate to them
that they may only stay in Australia on those terms. If Karen succeeds
in changing the structure of the organization she belongs to, then
those who don't like the new direction the organization's heading in
can leave and set up their own organization. That does not violate
their rights. They only have the right to associate with like-minded
individuals who share their values and religious beliefs on their
terms on the condition that those other individuals consent to doing
it. If the consent is withdrawn, that does not violate their rights.
Countries are not like organizations because no-one else has the right
to dictate to an individual the terms on which he or she may stay in
the country. All this is Libertarianism 101.

> > The state is a special case because
>
> False.
>

This stuff is Libertarianism 101, Ball. Snipping my argument and
writing "False" is not a counter-argument.

> >> Would someone advocating the establishment of
> >> sharia for Australia be going against the fundamental
> >> character of the place, rupie, you ****?
>
> > That's a silly analogy.
>
> It's not. It's a good analogy, and it had its intended
> effect of tying you up in knots.
>

No, I debunked it quite easily.

> >> You shouldn't even bother answering that, rupie -
> >> you'll disgrace yourself.
>
> > For someone who
>
> You disgraced yourself.
>

Silly clown.

> >>>>>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
> >>>>>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
> >>>>>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
> >>>>>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
> >>>>>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
> >>>>> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
> >>>> False.
> >>> Pffffffft.
> >> Incoherent blabber.
>
> > No, just
>
> Incoherent blabber. You do it a lot.
>
> >>>>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
> >>>>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
> >>>>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
> >>>>>>> Who has she hurt?
> >>>>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
> >>>>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
> >>>> She spilled it her for one and all.
> >>> So what?
> >> So, rupie, you ****, she voluntarily made it our business.
>
> > No, she didn't.
>
> Yes, she did.
>
> >>>> Sootikin/Karen
> >>>> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
> >>>> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
> >>>> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
> >>> When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?
> >> She attacks chico's, Derek's and my character every
> >> chance she gets. It's pure bile.
>
> > You spend your life attacking other people's character on usenet,
>
> Only when they reveal bad character. They deserve it.
>

No. You make up fantasies about other people to satisfy your desperate
need to put other people down. In your sick, twisted little mind, you
convince yourself that they deserve it, but it's all just a symptom of
your pathology.

> >>>>>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
> >>>>>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> >>>>>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> >>>>>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
> >>>>>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> >>>>>>>>>>> "harmful"?
> >>>>>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
> >>>>>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> >>>>>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
> >>>>>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
> >>>>>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
> >>>>>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
> >>>>>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
> >>>>>>> to listen.
> >>>>>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
> >>>>>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
> >>>>>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
> >>>>>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
> >>>>>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
> >>>>> Fine.
> >>>> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
> >>>> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
> >>>> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...
> >> WELL, rupie, you stupid ****?
>
> > Well what? What's your point? I'm not the least bit interested.
>
> Liar.
>

Silly clown.

> >>>>>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
> >>>>>>>> or reject it.
> >>>>>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
> >>>>>> St. Bede's did.
> >>>>> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
> >>>> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
> >>> Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.
> >>>>>>> You seem to be upset that
> >>>>>>> they've chosen not to do that.
> >>>>>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
> >>>>>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
> >>>>>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
> >>>>> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
> >>>>> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
> >>>> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
> >>>> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
> >>>> preposterous.
> >>> No, Rudy, you have absolutely no clue about what I do
> >> I know you, rupie. You're a passivist. You do nothing.
>
> > Silly fool.
>
> Stupid lying passivist.
>
> >>>>>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >>>>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
> >>>>>>> Having a moral high ground
> >>>>>> You don't.
> >>>>> Every minimally decent person
> >>>> That lets you out.
> >>> Stop projecting.
> >> You're not minimally decent, rupie, you massive
> >> hypocrite and liar.
>
> > I am a morally good person.
>
> You're a filthy amoral shitbag.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
> >>>>>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
> >>>>>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
> >>>>>> Implicitly, she did.
> >>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
> >>> Imbecile.
> >> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat. Two in a row!
>
> >>>>>>>>> instead of listing the
> >>>>>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> >>>>>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
> >>>>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
> >>>>>>> I don't know.
> >>>>>> You don't know anything.
> >>>>> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
> >>>> No.
> >>>>>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
> >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
> >>>>>>> credibility.
> >>>>>> You don't know anything, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
> >>>>>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> >>>>>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
> >>>>>>>> I meet my standards,
> >>>>>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
> >>>>>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >>>>>>>> yours?
> >>>>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
> >>>>>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
> >>>>>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
> >>>>>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
> >>>>> Er, no,
> >>>> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
> >>>> hoc temporizing.
> >>> My moral standards are
> >> non existent. You are fully immersed in ad hoc expediency.
>
> > Imbecile.
>
> Filthy self-absorbed shitbag.
>
> >>>>>>>> **** off.
> >>>>>>> No, you **** off.
> >>>>>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong
> >>>>>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> >>>>>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> >>>>>>>>> about casting the first stone.
> >>>>>>>> It was relevant.
> >>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
> >>>>>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
> >>>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
> >>>> disqualifying factor.
> >>> Nope.
> >> Yep.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
> >>>>>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> >>>>>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
> >>>>>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
> >>>>>>> No, you didn't.
> >>>>>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
> >>>>> He didn't give any good reason.
> >>>> He did.
> >>> No, he did not,
> >> He did.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>>>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>>>>> Ridiculous.
> >>>>>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
> >>>>>> do that a lot.
> >>>>> Your delusions
> >>>> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
> >>>> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
> >>> Rudy, you know perfectly well that
> >> I know perfectly well that, when you blabber a one-word
> >> answer, rupie, it is a concession of failure.
>
> > No.
>
> There's another!
>
> >>>>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>>>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >>>>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >>>>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >>>>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >>>>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >>>>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
> >>>>>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> >>>>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
> >>>>>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
> >>>>>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
> >>>>> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
> >>>> I do know about it, rupie.
> >>> Very interesting.
> >> Up to a point, rupie.
>
> >>>>> Either the desire
> >>>>> exists or it doesn't.
> >>>> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
> >>>> desire.
> >>> Why not?
> >> The animal *never* would have come upon it naturally.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> That's why it had to be conditioned in the first place,
> ****.
>
> > Anyway, it doesn't address my question. You were talking about the
> > "legitimacy" of the desire. What's the foundation for your claim about
> > that?
>
> If it's conditioned, it isn't the animal's legitimate
> desire.
>
> ****wit.
>

What is conditioning exactly? Aren't all civilized humans subject to
"conditioning" during childhood? In what sense does conditioning
undermine the "legitimacy" of desires?

> >>>>>>>>>> How many of your medications were
> >>>>>>>>>> tested on animals,
> >>>>>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
> >>>>>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
> >>>>>> Evasion noted, rupie.
> >>>>> No evasion,
> >>>> Evasion, rupie; noted.
> >>> Nope, no evasion.
> >> Evasion; noted.
>
> >>>>>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
> >>>>>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
> >>>>>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
> >>>>>> fire on students and professors.

It's quite ironic that you keep on making up these silly fantasies
about how I have a disposition towards violence when you are the one
who is always entertaining fantasies about inflicting violence on
others.

> >>>>> We were talking about medications I take regularly.
> >>>> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
> >>>> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
> >>>> of your consumption of them.
> >>> He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
> >>> that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly
> >> No, you stupidly read that into it. It wasn't there.
> >> It's your youth, rupie - you're overmatched.
>
> > Um, yeah,
>
> Yeah.
>
> > I'm not that young, you know. How old are you?
>
> More than old enough. You're a punk.>>>> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
> >>>> queers any bullshit about "ar".
> >>> No, it doesn't,
> >> It does, rupie. Sorry (well, not really.)
>
> >>>>>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >>>>>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
> >>>>>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> >>>>>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> >>>>>>>>> medication in the near future.
> >>>>>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
> >>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>> You should, because you are one.
> >>>>> No.
> >>>> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.
> >>> Get a life.
> >> Have one, thanks. You should try it.

Rupert wrote:

> If (ChapelMouse) succeeds
> in changing the structure of the organization she belongs to,


Of course, I am not trying to do this single-handedly. The
positions I support WRT most of the theological/organizational
issues are completely in line with the majority opinion in the
Episcopal church, and with the stated opinions of our current
Presiding Bishop. I am a mainstream Episcopalian on most issues,
and certainly on the issues on which the ECUSA is disagreeing
with the more conservative provinces on the Anglican Communion.

> then
> those who don't like the new direction the organization's heading in
> can leave and set up their own organization. That does not violate
> their rights. They only have the right to associate with like-minded
> individuals who share their values and religious beliefs on their
> terms on the condition that those other individuals consent to doing
> it. If the consent is withdrawn, that does not violate their rights.
> Countries are not like organizations because no-one else has the right
> to dictate to an individual the terms on which he or she may stay in
> the country. All this is Libertarianism 101.

Absolutely correct. All Christian denominations are a result of
this process. Polity and doctrine, and interpretation of them,
have changed many times over the centuries and vary today from
one denomination to another. The issue in the Anglican
Communion today is whether the differences of opinion between
the more liberal and more conservative groups -- parishes,
dioceses, provinces -- are so great that there needs to be a
new organizational split into two denominations or not. The
secondary issue is which denomination, if they split, will
have legal title to the property of the church. It's
unfortunate that this secular issue has to be included,
because it brings the State into the process, which muddies
the waters on the religious issue.

<snip>

Rupture wrote:
> On May 3, 12:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupture wrote:
>>> On May 2, 5:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> low time value rupie blabbered:
>>>>> On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupture wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupture wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupture wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> son,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>>>>>>>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>>>>>>>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>>>>>>>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>>>>>>>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>>>>>>>>>>>> like her.
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay
>>>>>>>>>> She loathes her son.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
>>>>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
>>>>>>>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
>>>>>>>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>>>>>>>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
>>>>>>>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
>>>>>>>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
>>>>>>>>>> will be *** like her.
>>>>>>>>> Don't see a problem with that.
>>>>>>>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
>>>>>>>> Sootikin.
>>>>>>> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
>>>>>>> being ***?
>>>>>> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
>>>>>> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
>>>>>> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
>>>>>> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
>>>>>> her. She wants it because it would make her son
>>>>>> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
>>>>>> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
>>>>>> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
>>>>> So you say.
>>>> Read her posts on it, shitbag. It's obvious.
>>>>>>> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
>>>>>> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
>>>>>> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
>>>>>> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
>>>>>> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
>>>>>> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
>>>>>> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
>>>>>> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
>>>>>> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
>>>>> No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
>>>>> as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.
>>>> No, it wasn't.
>>> Your delusions
>> No delusions.
>>
>
> So you actually can read my mind,

I have no delusions, rupie.


>>>>>>>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
>>>>>>>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
>>>>>>>>>> isn't Christian.
>>>>>>>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
>>>>>>>>> sickening.
>>>>>>>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>>>>>>> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
>>>>>> ipse dixit
>>>>>>>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
>>>>>>>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
>>>>>>>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>> No, I'm afraid that's you
>>>>>> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
>>>>>>>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
>>>>>>>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
>>>>>>>> usenet.
>>>>>>> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
>>>>>> You are entirely self absorbed.
>>>>> What was that about "ipse dixit"?
>>>> You practically *scream* self absorption.
>>> This is not the case,
>> It is the case.
>>
>
> Then it should be possible for you to provide just one iota of
> evidence that I am self-absorbed in the least.

Already done, many times. The best example is the
total abdication of your duty not to kill animals due
to your wish for self fulfillment and glory as a
mathematician. You put your selfish and mean interest
in professional attainment ahead of the *rights* you
claim are held by animals. That's utter self
absorption. You spend countless thousands of hours
dabbling in "study" (scoff) of ethics merely to justify
your narcissistic and emotion-based adoption of
"veganism". That's self absorption. You are
completely self absorbed, rupie.


>>>>>>>>> You once told me to
>>>>>>>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
>>>>>>>> More than sufficient provocation.
>>>>>>>> Did you do it? Why not?
>>>>>>> Contemptible slimeball.
>>>>>> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
>>>>>>>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> You have no standing either, rupie.
>>>>>>> No, that's you,
>>>>>> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At what age?
>>>>>>>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
>>>>>>>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
>>>>>>>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>>>>>>> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
>>>>>>> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
>>>>>> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
>>>>>> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
>>>>>> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
>>>>> Well, that's all as may be.
>>>> It's fact, rupie. Sootikin/Karen isn't concerned with
>>>> her own happiness, but rather with augmenting her son's
>>>> unhappiness, which - perversely, psychotically -
>>>> contributes to Karen's happiness. That's sick; ****ed up.
>>> How about the way you spend your life trying to cause people you meet
>>> on usenet unhappiness
>> Not so.
>>
>
> Of course it's so.

No, it isn't so.


>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>>>>>>>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>>>>>>>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
>>>>>>>> what self-absorption does to a person.
>>>>>>> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
>>>>>> Done, many times over.
>>>>> Ridiculous
>>>> **** off, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think
>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
>>>>>>>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
>>>>>>>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>>>>>>>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
>>>>>>>>>> in her church
>>>>>>>>> I really don't care.
>>>>>>>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
>>>>>>>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>>>>>>> You're a bit confused here,
>>>>>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>>>>> Yes,
>>>> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>>>>>>>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
>>>>>>>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
>>>>>>>> No, that's not so.
>>>>>>> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
>>>>>> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
>>>>>> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
>>>>>> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
>>>>>> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
>>>>> Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
>>>>> organization is?
>>>> I think that's pretty obvious, rupie. Is sharia law
>>>> part of the fundamental character of Australia, you
>>>> ****?
>>> That's a different issue.
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>
> No evasion at all.

Evasion. It's noted.


>>> That's about the limits on what the state
>>> can morally do.
>> Irrelevant. An attempt to impose sharia on your
>> country would still be an attempt to change an
>> organization that you are defending when Sootikin is
>> attempting something similar in her church.
>>
>
> An attempt to impose sharia on my country would violate the rights of
> its citizens.
ipse dixit


>>> The state is a special case because
>> False.
>>
>
> This stuff is

Your "special case" is bullshit. Trying to impose
sharia on a democratic state, and trying to get a
Christian church to reject the teachings of Christ, are
fundamentally the same. Both are trying to change the
essential character of institutions, when the
obligation is on those who are unhappy with the status
quo to leave and go form their own organizations.

You lost, rupie. Again.


>>>> Would someone advocating the establishment of
>>>> sharia for Australia be going against the fundamental
>>>> character of the place, rupie, you ****?
>>> That's a silly analogy.
>> It's not. It's a good analogy, and it had its intended
>> effect of tying you up in knots.
>>
>
> No, I debunked it

No. The analogy is sound, and you did nothing but flop
around.


>>>> You shouldn't even bother answering that, rupie -
>>>> you'll disgrace yourself.
>>> For someone who
>> You disgraced yourself.
>>
>
> Silly clown.

Stupid disgraced asshole.


>>>>>>>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
>>>>>>>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
>>>>>>>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
>>>>>>>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
>>>>>>>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>>>>>>> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
>>>>>> False.
>>>>> Pffffffft.
>>>> Incoherent blabber.
>>> No, just
>> Incoherent blabber. You do it a lot.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>>>>>>>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>>>>>>>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>>>>>>>> Who has she hurt?
>>>>>>>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>>>>>>> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
>>>>>> She spilled it her for one and all.
>>>>> So what?
>>>> So, rupie, you ****, she voluntarily made it our business.
>>> No, she didn't.
>> Yes, she did.
>>
>>>>>> Sootikin/Karen
>>>>>> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
>>>>>> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
>>>>>> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>>>>> When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?
>>>> She attacks chico's, Derek's and my character every
>>>> chance she gets. It's pure bile.
>>> You spend your life attacking other people's character on usenet,
>> Only when they reveal bad character. They deserve it.
>>
>
> No.

Yes. I don't make any special effort to find reasons
to attack the character of usenet participants.
Rather, they willingly serve me up all the
justification needed. They exhibit rotten character,
quite openly, and I'm only too happy to point it out to
them. You, for example. You're scum.


>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>>>>>>>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "harmful"?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
>>>>>>>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>>>>>>>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
>>>>>>>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>>>>>>>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
>>>>>>>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
>>>>>>>>> to listen.
>>>>>>>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
>>>>>>>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
>>>>>>>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
>>>>>>>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
>>>>>>>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>>>>>>> Fine.
>>>>>> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
>>>>>> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
>>>>>> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...
>>>> WELL, rupie, you stupid ****?
>>> Well what? What's your point? I'm not the least bit interested.
>> Liar.
>>
>
> Silly clown.

Lying narcissistic prissy psychotic little queer.


>>>>>>>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
>>>>>>>>>> or reject it.
>>>>>>>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
>>>>>>>> St. Bede's did.
>>>>>>> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
>>>>>> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
>>>>> Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be upset that
>>>>>>>>> they've chosen not to do that.
>>>>>>>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
>>>>>>>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
>>>>>>>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>>>>>>> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
>>>>>>> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
>>>>>> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
>>>>>> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
>>>>>> preposterous.
>>>>> No, Rudy, you have absolutely no clue about what I do
>>>> I know you, rupie. You're a passivist. You do nothing.
>>> Silly fool.
>> Stupid lying passivist.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>>>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>>>>>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>>>>>>>> Having a moral high ground
>>>>>>>> You don't.
>>>>>>> Every minimally decent person
>>>>>> That lets you out.
>>>>> Stop projecting.
>>>> You're not minimally decent, rupie, you massive
>>>> hypocrite and liar.
>>> I am a morally good person.
>> You're a filthy amoral shitbag.

Concession noted and accepted.


>>>>>>>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>>>>>>>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>>>>>>>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
>>>>>>>> Implicitly, she did.
>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
>>>>> Imbecile.
>>>> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat. Two in a row!
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of listing the
>>>>>>>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
>>>>>>>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
>>>>>>>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>>>>>>>> I don't know.
>>>>>>>> You don't know anything.
>>>>>>> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
>>>>>>>>> credibility.
>>>>>>>> You don't know anything, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
>>>>>>>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
>>>>>>>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>>>>>>>>>> I meet my standards,
>>>>>>>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
>>>>>>>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>>>>>>>> yours?
>>>>>>>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
>>>>>>>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
>>>>>>>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
>>>>>>>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>>>>>>> Er, no,
>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
>>>>>> hoc temporizing.
>>>>> My moral standards are
>>>> non existent. You are fully immersed in ad hoc expediency.
>>> Imbecile.
>> Filthy self-absorbed shitbag.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> **** off.
>>>>>>>>> No, you **** off.
>>>>>>>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
>>>>>>>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
>>>>>>>>>>> about casting the first stone.
>>>>>>>>>> It was relevant.
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
>>>>>>>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
>>>>>> disqualifying factor.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>>>>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
>>>>>>>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>>>>>>>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't.
>>>>>>>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>>>>>>> He didn't give any good reason.
>>>>>> He did.
>>>>> No, he did not,
>>>> He did.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>>>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>>>>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>>>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
>>>>>>>> do that a lot.
>>>>>>> Your delusions
>>>>>> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
>>>>>> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
>>>>> Rudy, you know perfectly well that
>>>> I know perfectly well that, when you blabber a one-word
>>>> answer, rupie, it is a concession of failure.
>>> No.
>> There's another!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>>>>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>>>>>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>>>>>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>>>>>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>>>>>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>>>>>>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>>>>>>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>>>>>>>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>>>>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>>>>>>> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
>>>>>> I do know about it, rupie.
>>>>> Very interesting.
>>>> Up to a point, rupie.
>>>>>>> Either the desire
>>>>>>> exists or it doesn't.
>>>>>> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
>>>>>> desire.
>>>>> Why not?
>>>> The animal *never* would have come upon it naturally.
>>> How do you know?
>> That's why it had to be conditioned in the first place,
>> ****.
>>
>>> Anyway, it doesn't address my question. You were talking about the
>>> "legitimacy" of the desire. What's the foundation for your claim about
>>> that?
>> If it's conditioned, it isn't the animal's legitimate
>> desire.
>>
>> ****wit.
>>
>
> What is conditioning exactly?

In this case, tricking the animal into ****ing humans
when it never would have done so on its own. I'm
surprised you'd need to ask that, rupie, but then,
you're a cocksucking sophist, and the question was
asked in bad faith. **** off.


>>>>>>>>>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>>>>>>>>>> tested on animals,
>>>>>>>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
>>>>>>>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>>>>>>>> Evasion noted, rupie.
>>>>>>> No evasion,
>>>>>> Evasion, rupie; noted.
>>>>> Nope, no evasion.
>>>> Evasion; noted.
>>>>>>>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
>>>>>>>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
>>>>>>>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
>>>>>>>> fire on students and professors.
>
> It's quite ironic that you keep on making up these silly fantasies
> about how I have a disposition towards violence

You're psychotic. Psychotic people do things like that.

You waited too late to respond to that; it was several
posts back. Don't do that again.


>>>>>>> We were talking about medications I take regularly.
>>>>>> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
>>>>>> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
>>>>>> of your consumption of them.
>>>>> He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
>>>>> that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly
>>>> No, you stupidly read that into it. It wasn't there.
>>>> It's your youth, rupie - you're overmatched.
>>> Um, yeah,
>> Yeah.
>>
>>> I'm not that young, you know. How old are you?
>> More than old enough. You're a punk.
>>
>>>>>> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
>>>>>> queers any bullshit about "ar".
>>>>> No, it doesn't,
>>>> It does, rupie. Sorry (well, not really.)

It really does, rupie.


>>>>>>>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>>>>>>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>>>>>>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>>>>>>>>>> medication in the near future.
>>>>>>>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>> You should, because you are one.
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.
>>>>> Get a life.
>>>> Have one, thanks. You should try it.
>
>

Sootikin aka Karen Winter lied:
> Rupture wrote:
>
>> If Sootikin succeeds
>> in changing the structure of the organization she belongs to,
>
>
> Of course, I am not trying to do this single-handedly.

You are very much in the minority.



>> then
>> those who don't like the new direction the organization's heading in
>> can leave and set up their own organization. That does not violate
>> their rights. They only have the right to associate with like-minded
>> individuals who share their values and religious beliefs on their
>> terms on the condition that those other individuals consent to doing
>> it. If the consent is withdrawn, that does not violate their rights.
>> Countries are not like organizations because no-one else has the right
>> to dictate to an individual the terms on which he or she may stay in
>> the country. All this is Libertarianism 101.
>
> Absolutely correct.

Absolutely bullshit sophistry. You'll never change, Karen.


> All Christian denominations are a result of
> this process.

You might as well be trying to change your church into
Buddhism. You're trying to alter the fundamental
character of it, Sootikin, not make some minor change.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:

>>> If Karen succeeds
>>> in changing the structure of the organization she belongs to,

>> Of course, I am not trying to do this single-handedly.

> You are very much in the minority.

The ECUSA in general is in the minority in the Anglican
Communion, but that does not mean it is wrong, or that it
does not have a right to follow the course it is following.
My position is in line with the majority in the ECUSA.
Only about ten per cent of American Episcopalians disagree
on the issue of a diocese having the authority to elect
an out *** bishop or to authorize blessing of same-sex
unions within its own territory.

Read the statement by the Presiding Bishop on the
subject. My views agree with hers.

<snip>

>>> then
>>> those who don't like the new direction the organization's heading in
>>> can leave and set up their own organization. That does not violate
>>> their rights. They only have the right to associate with like-minded
>>> individuals who share their values and religious beliefs on their
>>> terms on the condition that those other individuals consent to doing
>>> it. If the consent is withdrawn, that does not violate their rights.
>>> Countries are not like organizations because no-one else has the right
>>> to dictate to an individual the terms on which he or she may stay in
>>> the country. All this is Libertarianism 101.

>> Absolutely correct.

> Absolutely bullshit sophistry.

The U.S. Constitution specifically denies the secular State the
right to require citizens to accept a particular religious
position -- that is what an "establishment of religion"
means. I don't know the law in Australia, but Rupert's
position is both correct under U.S. law, and correct under
Libertarian theory.

<snip>

Karen Winter, pagan-oriented heretic, wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
>> If sootikin succeeds
>> in changing the structure of the organization she belongs to,
>
>
> Of course, I am not trying to do this single-handedly. The
> positions I support WRT most of the theological/organizational
> issues are completely in line with the majority opinion in the
> Episcopal church,

Wrong, it's *not* a majority opinion among the whole of Episcopalianism.
Your sect is not a democratic, bottom-up structure; it's top-down. It's
a majority opinion among the small group of decision-makers in the
organization. Every instance in which a parish has had a vote to split
from E_USA (the C doesn't apply) over the present apostasy has resulted
in a break, not in remaining in fellowship.

> and with the stated opinions of our current
> Presiding Bishop.

Schori's views aren't shared by most Episcopalians, certainly not by
most Christians. Her views are shared by the Green Party. Alas, that's
what E_USA has become: a political organization, not a church.

> I am a mainstream Episcopalian on most issues,

Only to the extent that E_USA has marginalized itself from the
mainstream of society and the mainstream of the global Anglican fellowship.

> and certainly on the issues on which the E_USA is disagreeing
> with the more conservative provinces on the Anglican Communion.

The "more conservative provinces" remains the mainstream of thought
within the communion. You're out of step with it because you're out of
touch with scripture and tradition.

>> then
>> those who don't like the new direction the organization's heading in
>> can leave and set up their own organization. That does not violate
>> their rights. They only have the right to associate with like-minded
>> individuals who share their values and religious beliefs on their
>> terms on the condition that those other individuals consent to doing
>> it. If the consent is withdrawn, that does not violate their rights.
>> Countries are not like organizations because no-one else has the right
>> to dictate to an individual the terms on which he or she may stay in
>> the country. All this is Libertarianism 101.
>
> Absolutely correct. All Christian denominations are a result of
> this process. Polity and doctrine, and interpretation of them,
> have changed many times over the centuries and vary today from
> one denomination to another. The issue in the Anglican
> Communion today is whether the differences of opinion between
> the more liberal

radical

> and more conservative

traditional

> groups --

The issue isn't over liberal-versus-conservative, but
radical-versus-traditional.

> parishes,
> dioceses, provinces -- are so great that there needs to be a
> new organizational split into two denominations or not. The
> secondary issue is which denomination, if they split, will
> have legal title to the property of the church.

Why not leave it up to each parish? Why should people who've made tithes
and offerings be stripped bare and have to start over from scratch?

> It's
> unfortunate that this secular issue has to be included,
> because it brings the State into the process, which muddies
> the waters on the religious issue.

You're the one who's longed for schism over secular issues like this.
Making your radical agenda a priority is what's muddied it all up. The
doctrinal side of this is fully established, and it's irrelevant how you
choose to classify yourself -- Episcopalian, Anglo-catholic, Christian
-- because your actions and your desired outcomes are far outside the
bounds of the church and its teachings. You may as well call yourself a
pagan since your worldview and AR views are much more consistent with
those found in nature-based religions than in historic Christianity.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 2, 6:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > I'm extremely honest with myself
>>
>> No you're not, you hide from the truth by becoming non-responsive and
>> evasive when an idea threatens to undermine this "equality for animals"
>> ideal that you have allowed yourself to become enamoured with.
>
> Not at all. I'm never non-responsive or evasive.

I'll add denial to the list. You are nothing if not evasive.

> Okay, so I pay for a
> drug whose manufacturers unfortunately used some animal tests during
> the research and development phase many years ago.

The entire medical system is based on animal testing for safety and
efficacy, and not only many years ago, NOW. Then there's the problem of
"factory farming", and yes, you support it too.

> I have no
> alternative short of exposing myself to a significant risk of having
> another psychotic episode.

So what? If I were dying of a bad heart I could not under any circumstances
expect another rights-holder to give me his. My only recourse is to suffer
and die. If animals are entitled to equal consideration of their interests
then we are not entitled to exploit or harm them to develop drugs or to
train doctors, grow crops, or to protect our own interests. All we could do
morally would be to defend ourselves if they physically attacked us.

> I don't see how equal consideration for all
> sentient beings necessarily entails that this behaviour of mine is
> seriously morally flawed.

Then you're dense.

> Even if it did, I certainly don't see how
> that undermines equal consideration for all sentient beings, or that
> Ball and chico are entitled to morally crticize me for failing to live
> up to this exacting standard, when they themselves do absolutely
> nothing by way of reducing their contribution to the suffering in this
> world.

They aren't morally obliged to live up to a standard that you set, but you
are.

On May 4, 7:20 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On May 2, 6:49 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > I'm extremely honest with myself
>
> >> No you're not, you hide from the truth by becoming non-responsive and
> >> evasive when an idea threatens to undermine this "equality for animals"
> >> ideal that you have allowed yourself to become enamoured with.
>
> > Not at all. I'm never non-responsive or evasive.
>
> I'll add denial to the list. You are nothing if not evasive.
>

Give an example.

> > Okay, so I pay for a
> > drug whose manufacturers unfortunately used some animal tests during
> > the research and development phase many years ago.
>
> The entire medical system is based on animal testing for safety and
> efficacy, and not only many years ago, NOW. Then there's the problem of
> "factory farming", and yes, you support it too.
>

I don't support factory-farming of animals. I am campaigning to make
changes in the medical system.

> > I have no
> > alternative short of exposing myself to a significant risk of having
> > another psychotic episode.
>
> So what? If I were dying of a bad heart I could not under any circumstances
> expect another rights-holder to give me his. My only recourse is to suffer
> and die. If animals are entitled to equal consideration of their interests
> then we are not entitled to exploit or harm them to develop drugs or to
> train doctors, grow crops, or to protect our own interests. All we could do
> morally would be to defend ourselves if they physically attacked us.
>

You're confusing the proposition that animals are entitled to equal
consideration with the proposition that animals have rights. And even
rights positions may hold that the rights can be overridden in some
circumstances, for example in the case of growing crops.

> > I don't see how equal consideration for all
> > sentient beings necessarily entails that this behaviour of mine is
> > seriously morally flawed.
>
> Then you're dense.
>

By your own admission, you do not understand what "equal
consideration" means. You are not qualified to discuss this issue, I
am.

> > Even if it did, I certainly don't see how
> > that undermines equal consideration for all sentient beings, or that
> > Ball and chico are entitled to morally crticize me for failing to live
> > up to this exacting standard, when they themselves do absolutely
> > nothing by way of reducing their contribution to the suffering in this
> > world.
>
> They aren't morally obliged to live up to a standard that you set, but you
> are.

I do live up to my own standards. I am not morally obliged to live up
to the standards that they set, especially when they do absolutely
nothing by way of following them themselves.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On May 4, 7:20 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> >> > I'm extremely honest with myself
>>
>> >> No you're not, you hide from the truth by becoming non-responsive and
>> >> evasive when an idea threatens to undermine this "equality for
>> >> animals"
>> >> ideal that you have allowed yourself to become enamoured with.
>>
>> > Not at all. I'm never non-responsive or evasive.
>>
>> I'll add denial to the list. You are nothing if not evasive.
>>
>
> Give an example.

When I questioned why you constantly use the word "financially" you
responded with "It's complicated..".

>> > Okay, so I pay for a
>> > drug whose manufacturers unfortunately used some animal tests during
>> > the research and development phase many years ago.
>>
>> The entire medical system is based on animal testing for safety and
>> efficacy, and not only many years ago, NOW. Then there's the problem of
>> "factory farming", and yes, you support it too.
>>
>
> I don't support factory-farming of animals.

I don't support it in principle either, only occasionally in practice. You
do support the factory farming of every other commodity, and they all result
in animal deaths.

> I am campaigning to make
> changes in the medical system.

Meanwhile, in practice you support it by taking advantage of the advances of
modern medicine, just as I sometimes support the factory farming of animals
whilst opposing it in principle.

>
>> > I have no
>> > alternative short of exposing myself to a significant risk of having
>> > another psychotic episode.
>>
>> So what? If I were dying of a bad heart I could not under any
>> circumstances
>> expect another rights-holder to give me his. My only recourse is to
>> suffer
>> and die. If animals are entitled to equal consideration of their
>> interests
>> then we are not entitled to exploit or harm them to develop drugs or to
>> train doctors, grow crops, or to protect our own interests. All we could
>> do
>> morally would be to defend ourselves if they physically attacked us.
>>
>
> You're confusing the proposition that animals are entitled to equal
> consideration with the proposition that animals have rights.

I'm not confusing it, the idea itself is incoherent.

> And even
> rights positions may hold that the rights can be overridden in some
> circumstances

Such circumstances are strictly proscribed.

> for example in the case of growing crops.

If the vital interests of animals can be overriden in the case of the
production of crops (food) then why not in the production of meat (food)?

>> > I don't see how equal consideration for all
>> > sentient beings necessarily entails that this behaviour of mine is
>> > seriously morally flawed.
>>
>> Then you're dense.
>>
>
> By your own admission, you do not understand what "equal
> consideration" means. You are not qualified to discuss this issue, I
> am.

You have also admitted that you don't understand what it means. David
DeGrazia admitted he doesn't really understand what it means. The fact is,
it's a principle that *sounds good* on paper but it falls apart when one
tries to apply it to the real world.
>
>> > Even if it did, I certainly don't see how
>> > that undermines equal consideration for all sentient beings, or that
>> > Ball and chico are entitled to morally crticize me for failing to live
>> > up to this exacting standard, when they themselves do absolutely
>> > nothing by way of reducing their contribution to the suffering in this
>> > world.
>>
>> They aren't morally obliged to live up to a standard that you set, but
>> you
>> are.
>
> I do live up to my own standards.

You absolutely do not. You are paying lip service to a far more stringent
standard of conduct than the one you live by. In reality you are defining as
acceptable whatever you happen to feel able to do within the constraints of
your chosen lifestyle, that is not living up to your standards (principles),
it is lowering your standards in practice to match your behaviour.

> I am not morally obliged to live up
> to the standards that they set,

The only person setting standards for you is you, with claims like "equal
consideration". You don't live by such an ideal by any plausible definition
of the term.

> especially when they do absolutely
> nothing by way of following them themselves.

They are not the ones making moral proclamations. I have certain ideals that
I would like to see put into action, and I live by them to a certain extent,
but not entirely, because, like you and everyone else, I also live my life
according to the principle of self-interest. It's a balancing act, and you
are not in a position to judge where the balance point must be for others
because the phrase "factory farming" happens to evoke an emotional reaction
in your brain.