FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Always put quotes around "vegan" (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/416325-always-put-quotes-around.html)

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 04:04 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/23/2012 12:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>>>>>>>> the whole concept.

>>
>>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>>
>>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>>
>>>>> In your unqualified opinion

>>
>>>> No less qualified than yours.

>>
>>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
>>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>>
>>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
>>> about it.

>>
>> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
>> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

>
> You think that the be-all and end-all is whether you have formally
> studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
> mathematical logic and set theory but


Bullshit. Those are fields you necessarily would have had to study to
obtain a Ph.D. in mathematics. If some medieval French literature twit
were to make that claim about mathematical logic and set theory, it
would be plausible (although not very believable), but not a Ph.D. in math.

Rupert 23-03-2012 09:39 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 4:04*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 12:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>>>>>> the whole concept.

>
> >>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> >>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> >>>>> In your unqualified opinion

>
> >>>> No less qualified than yours.

>
> >>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> >>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>
> >>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> >>> about it.

>
> >> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
> >> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

>
> > You think that the be-all and end-all is whether you have formally
> > studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
> > mathematical logic and set theory but

>
> Bullshit. *Those are fields you necessarily would have had to study to
> obtain a Ph.D. in mathematics. *If some medieval French literature twit
> were to make that claim about mathematical logic and set theory, it
> would be plausible (although not very believable), but not a Ph.D. in math.


The University of New South Wales does not specialise in those fields,
and a lot of research mathematicians do not know very much about them.
I did do a course called "Set Theory and Topology" and another called
"Computability and Logic", but those did not take me very far.
"Computability and Logic" did not include first-order logic. I taught
myself first-order logic, intuitionistic logic, modal logic, proof
theory and model theory, and I read Gödel's 1931 paper, entirely by
myself. I also read Paul Cohen's "Set Theory and the Continuum
Hypothesis", Jech's "Set Theory", Machover's "Set Theory, Logic, and
Their Limitations", Potter's "Set Theory and its Philosophy", Drake's
"Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals", and much work by
Hugh Woodin and Peter Koellner, entirely by myself. That goes way
beyond what we covered in the set theory and topology course.

Rupert 23-03-2012 09:40 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 4:02*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 12:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>>>>>> the whole concept.

>
> >>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> >>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> >>>>> In your unqualified opinion

>
> >>>> No less qualified than yours.

>
> >>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> >>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>
> >>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> >>> about it.

>
> >> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
> >> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

>
> > I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.

>
> You are not an expert in it. *You are delusional if you think you have
> either the intellectual or moral right to be wagging your finger in
> anyone's face.


I'm not wagging my finger in anyone's face.

Rupert 23-03-2012 09:40 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 22, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it..

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>> friends and acquaintances.

>
> >>> Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
> >>> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
> >>> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >> They're suck-ups.

>
> > You're a fool.

>
> You're an arrogant and egotistical clueless urbanite. ***** off.


Go and stuff your head up a pig.

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 11:08 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/23/2012 1:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:02 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 12:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>>>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>>>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>>>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>>>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>>>>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>>>>>>>>>> the whole concept.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>>
>>>>>>> In your unqualified opinion

>>
>>>>>> No less qualified than yours.

>>
>>>>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
>>>>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>>
>>>>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
>>>>> about it.

>>
>>>> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
>>>> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

>>
>>> I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.

>>
>> You are not an expert in it. You are delusional if you think you have
>> either the intellectual or moral right to be wagging your finger in
>> anyone's face.

>
> I'm not wagging my finger in anyone's face.


Of course you are. It's the very essence of so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism.

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 11:10 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/23/2012 1:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:47 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>>>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>>>>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>>>>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>> friends and acquaintances.

>>
>>>>> Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
>>>>> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
>>>>> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>> They're suck-ups.

>>
>>> You're a fool.

>>
>> You're an arrogant and egotistical clueless urbanite. **** off.

>
> Go and stuff your head up a pig.


Go have yourself a "vegan breakfast"
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...an%20Breakfast)

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 24-03-2012 02:05 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 2:40*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George > *wrote:
> > >> On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > * *wrote:
> > >>>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> > >>>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> > >>>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> > >>>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> > >>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> > >>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> > >>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> > >>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> > >>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> > >>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> > >>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> > >>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> > >>>> thinking people.

>
> > >>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> > >>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> > >>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> > >>>> friends and acquaintances.

>
> > >>> Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
> > >>> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
> > >>> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.

>
> > >> They're suck-ups.

>
> > > You're a fool.

>
> > You're an arrogant and egotistical clueless urbanite. ***** off.

>
> Go and stuff your head up a pig.



He already did. That's why he is the way he is.

dh@. 26-03-2012 11:02 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>
>>>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>>conscious
>>>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>>two
>>>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>>death
>>>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>>part,
>>>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>>
>>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>>>> the
>>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>>>
>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.

>>
>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>of all,

>
>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.


Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.

>>on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
>>the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.
>>
>>> which is even more evidence
>>>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>>>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>>>> get
>>>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>>>> Anyway, **** all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>>>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>>>> STILL
>>>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>>>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>>>> you
>>>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>>>> least one
>>>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>>>> unable to
>>>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>>>
>>>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.

>>
>> There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
>>beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
>>doesn't believe the distinction means anything.


He flip-flops like you, so I was hoping you could help him. All these years
of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.

dh@. 26-03-2012 11:04 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.

>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>
>No


You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


dh@. 26-03-2012 11:08 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>
>>>Below are all true.

>>
>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

>
>No, he's not.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

Dutch 27-03-2012 06:51 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
>>>>spew.
>>>
>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most
>>> self-serving
>>>of all,

>>
>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.

>
> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving


Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.



Dutch 27-03-2012 06:53 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>
>>>>Below are all true.
>>>
>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

>>
>>No, he's not.

>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo


He doesn't advocate that people think that way.



George Plimpton 28-03-2012 08:04 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>
>>>> Below are all true.
>>>
>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>
>> No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

>
> You say so


No.


>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

>
> You're saying


No.


>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton



dh@. 28-03-2012 07:29 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>>>>conscious
>>>>>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>>>>two
>>>>>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>>>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>>>>death
>>>>>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>>>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>>>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>>>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>>>>part,
>>>>>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>>>>>
>>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
>>>>
>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>>>of all,
>>>
>>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.

>>
>> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
>>only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>laying hens.

>
>Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.


Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.
.. . .
>>>>>>do you think that for some reason his brain is physically unable to
>>>>>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?
>>>>>
>>>>>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.
>>>>
>>>> There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
>>>>beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
>>>>doesn't believe the distinction means anything.

>>
>> He flip-flops like you, so I was hoping you could help him. All these years
>>of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
>>what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.


dh@. 28-03-2012 07:29 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>
>>>No, he's not.

>>
>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

>
>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
us so. LOL...you're disturbed that he revealed himself so clearly...LOL... To
you people the Goober is a hero dishonestly pretending to be anti-elimination in
his attempts to win the respect of true antis, when he's really very much in
favor of it. You admired the dishonesty so much that you're trying to get away
with it too, even though you suck worse at pretending than Goo does, and Goo sux
badly. This is only ONE of the ways the Goober has revealed himself.

dh@. 28-03-2012 07:35 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:04:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>
>>>No

>>
>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

>
>No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

>>>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

>>
>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>
>No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

>>>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


George Plimpton 28-03-2012 07:46 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober - lied:

>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

>>
>> No.

>
> Here's a clue


No.


>>>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>
>>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>
>> No.

>
> Here's a clue for


No. What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice, not
a morally good choice, for people who confusedly fall for the "ar" tale.


>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton



Dutch 28-03-2012 08:26 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 

<dh@.> wrote

> Having consideration can and does
> benefit livestock .


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


Dutch 28-03-2012 08:27 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>
>>>>No, he's not.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

>>
>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.

>
> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans


They should.



dh@. 03-04-2012 07:28 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:09 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>>>>>>conscious
>>>>>>>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>>>>>>two
>>>>>>>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>>>>>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>>>>>>death
>>>>>>>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>>>>>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>>>>>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>>>>>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>>>>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>>>>>>part,
>>>>>>>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>>>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>>>>>of all,
>>>>>
>>>>>It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>>>>
>>>> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
>>>>only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>>>livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>>>laying hens.
>>>
>>>Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.

>>
>> Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
>>benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
>>you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
>>and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
>>anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
>>elimination objective.

>
>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs, while
your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination objective.


dh@. 03-04-2012 07:32 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:46:02 -0700, the Goober wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:35:01 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:04:25 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>>>
>>>No.

>>
>> Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
>>saying some people should be vegans.
>>
>>>>>, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>>>have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>
>>>No.

>>
>> Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
>>saying some people should be vegans.

>
>No.


Yes Goob though it may be too much for you to comprehend, when you say some
people should be vegans, you're saying some people should be vegans.

>What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice


Why do you want people to believe that Goo?

>>>>>>>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


dh@. 03-04-2012 07:35 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:27:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's not.
>>>>
>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>
>>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.

>>
>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
>>us so.

>
>They should.


Then why did you try to deny that the Goober thinks so too?

>>LOL...you're disturbed that he revealed himself so clearly...LOL... To
>>you people the Goober is a hero dishonestly pretending to be anti-elimination in
>>his attempts to win the respect of true antis, when he's really very much in
>>favor of it. You admired the dishonesty so much that you're trying to get away
>>with it too, even though you suck worse at pretending than Goo does, and Goo sux
>>badly. This is only ONE of the ways the Goober has revealed himself.







><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's not.
>>>>
>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>
>>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.

>>
>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans

>
>They should.
>


George Plimpton 03-04-2012 07:39 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ugly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>>>>> awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>> reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>>>>>>>> second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>>>>>>> death
>>>>>>>>>> and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>>>>>>>> certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>>>>>>>> for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>>>>>>>> about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>>>>>>> lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>>>>>>> part,
>>>>>>>>>> there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>>>>>>> prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
>>>>>>> of all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
>>>>> only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
>>>>> livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
>>>>> laying hens.
>>>>
>>>> Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.
>>>
>>> Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
>>> benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
>>> you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
>>> and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
>>> anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
>>> elimination objective.

>>
>> Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

>
> It does by


It doesn't. It only causes them to exist, and coming into existence -
"getting to experience life", in your wretched lingo - is not a benefit.

George Plimpton 03-04-2012 07:40 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:


>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below are all true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>> You say so specifically you stupid Goober.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
>>> saying some people should be vegans.
>>>
>>>>>> , I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
>>>>>> have irrational and wrong notions about animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
>>> saying some people should be vegans.

>>
>> No.

>
> Yes George


No.


>> What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice

>
> Why do you want people to believe that


It has nothing to do with what I "want people to believe", Goo.


>
>>>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>>>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>>>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>>>>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>>>>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>>>>>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>>>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton



George Plimpton 03-04-2012 07:41 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:


>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>> ugly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below are all true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>>>
>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't advocate that people think that way.
>>>
>>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
>>> us so.

>>
>> They should.

>
> Then why did you try to deny that the Prof. Plimpton thinks so too?


Because I don't want to see the end of livestock farming, Goo.

Dutch 03-04-2012 11:56 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

>
> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs


That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering, followed by demanding and
buying cage free eggs is what results in options like cage free and free
range eggs.

Your "LoL" (an apt acronym) consideration is just you patting yourself on
the back after the fact. It does NOTHING for animals and that is proven by
the fact that you can't name a single animal that has ever benefitted from
it.

> while
> your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination
> objective.


The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant. We both oppose it,
whether you accept that or not. Your decade-long attempt to classify even
the most staunch antis as ARAs for opposing the horseshit that is The LoL,
is beyond laughable.




Dutch 03-04-2012 11:58 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:27:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4obm2d8v2bl2sqf3v0p@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the
>>>>>>>>>>loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he's not.
>>>>>
>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.>>>
>>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and
>>> he told
>>>us so.

>>
>>They should.

>
> Then why did you try to deny that the Goober thinks so too?


I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
shouldn't think that way, and therefore they shouldn't be vegans.






dh@. 09-04-2012 09:55 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

>>
>> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs

>
>That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,


That's part of it, and is the only part eliminationists want people to take
into consideration. Other people can move on to consider and appreciate the
positive aspect of when things like cage free eggs and welfare regulations
result in lives of positive value for millions of animals.

>followed by demanding and
>buying cage free eggs is what results in options like cage free and free
>range eggs.
>
>Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals] (an apt acronym) consideration is just you patting yourself on
>the back after the fact. It does NOTHING for animals and that is proven by
>the fact that you can't name a single animal that has ever benefitted from
>it.


People who buy cage free eggs do so because they believe the cage free
method provides decent lives for laying hens. If they didn't they wouldn't spend
the extra money on it, though there are no doubt people who DO believe it but
still don't spend the extra money because they don't care enough that it does.

>> while
>> your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination
>> objective.

>
>The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant.


Not to everyone.

>...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>is beyond laughable.


Not to everyone.

dh@. 09-04-2012 09:55 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:27:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4obm2d8v2bl2sqf3v0p@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, he's not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.>>>
>>>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and
>>>> he told
>>>>us so.
>>>
>>>They should.

>>
>> Then why did you try to deny that the Goober thinks so too?

>
>I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
>shouldn't think that way


What should they think instead?

George Plimpton 09-04-2012 10:12 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 4/9/2012 1:55 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, > wrote:



>> The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant.

>
> Not to everyone.


It is wholly irrelevant in terms of the non-existent "benefit" of
"getting to experience life" for animals.

Dutch 10-04-2012 12:01 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>
>>>>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
>>>
>>> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs

>>
>>That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,

>
> That's part of it


It's all of it.

>>...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>>is beyond laughable.

>
> Not to everyone.


Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock animals", they are two sides of the same coin.

In other words you have edited away your true agenda, why? Are you ashamed
of it? How do you expect readers to know that want them to take pride that
animals "get to experience life" because your appetite for meat if you hide
behind fake concern for animal welfare?




Dutch 10-04-2012 12:03 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:27:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:c0q1n79nj5ommt9q0q08r3c229m8jrsmm9@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:od2nm7pc7nb90am4obm2d8v2bl2sqf3v0p@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>hideously
>>>>>>>>>>>>ugly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Below are all true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, he's not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He doesn't advocate that people think that way.>>>
>>>>> He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and
>>>>> he told
>>>>>us so.
>>>>
>>>>They should.
>>>
>>> Then why did you try to deny that the Goober thinks so too?

>>
>>I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
>>shouldn't think that way

>
> What should they think instead?


That's not for me to say, just NOT that avoiding animal products equals a
cruelty free lifestyle.




dh@. 11-04-2012 06:49 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
>>>>
>>>> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs
>>>
>>>That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,

>>
>> That's part of it

>
>It's all of it.


Liar.

>>>...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>>>is beyond laughable.

>>
>> Not to everyone.

>
>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".


Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect. The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
years.

>If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
>positive value for livestock animals"


Are you now claiming to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
animals? If so, what made you change your mind all of a sudden do you know? Why
doesn't it make you feel dirty any more?

George Plimpton 11-04-2012 07:05 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 4/11/2012 10:49 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,
>>>
>>> That's part of it

>>
>> It's all of it.

>
> Liar.
>
>>>> ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
>>>> is beyond laughable.
>>>
>>> Not to everyone.

>>
>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

>
> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect. The other
> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
> years.
>
>> If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
>> positive value for livestock animals"

>
> Are you now claiming to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
> animals?


He always has - what he *doesn't* claim is that the animals ought to
exist in the first place.

Dutch 12-04-2012 01:09 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

>
> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.


Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

> The other
> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
> years.


It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

I've been waiting for 13 years for you to tell me what purpose it serves but
you can't do it. All you ever do is respond with vague language indicating
better conditions for animals but that is ONLY accomplished by considering
suffering then doing something about it, not "appreciating positive
situations"..





dh@. 15-04-2012 08:59 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

>>
>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

>
>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>situations are already just fine as they are.
>
>> The other
>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
>> years.

>
>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.


In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.


Dutch 16-04-2012 07:33 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>
>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>
>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

>>
>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>
>>> The other
>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all
>>> these
>>> years.

>>
>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

>
> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
> necessary
> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.


Explain why it is necessary.

Hint: you can't because it isn't. You're full of shit.




George Plimpton 16-04-2012 03:49 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 4/15/2012 12:59 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, > wrote:

>>
>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>
>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

>>
>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>
>>> The other
>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all these
>>> years.

>>
>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

>
> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a necessary
> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.


It isn't. It isn't necessary for anything, and you can't even define
what it means. It's just meaningless cracker blabber.

What you *want* it to mean is for people to want livestock animals to
exist, but the quality of their lives is no reason to want them to exist.

"Getting to experience life", of any quality, is not a benefit. There
is nothing to consider. If no more livestock ever exist, there is no
moral dimension to it.

dh@. 16-04-2012 11:39 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>
>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>
>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>
>>>> The other
>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all
>>>> these
>>>> years.
>>>
>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

>>
>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>> necessary
>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

>
>Explain why it is necessary.


Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one of the ways
that you reveal yourself.

>Hint: you can't because it isn't.


I did. ONLY eliminationists have reason to lie that the lives of billions of
animals are not worthy of consideration, because such a lie ONLY benefits the
elimination objective and NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.

George Plimpton 16-04-2012 11:59 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 4/16/2012 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal suffering" and
>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>
>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>
>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>
>>>>> The other
>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it all
>>>>> these
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", and it
>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>> necessary
>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

>>
>> Explain why it is necessary.

>
> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture.


No, it's meaningless.


>> Hint: you can't because it isn't.

>
> I did.


You didn't - you couldn't, because it's meaningless.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter