Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:56:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.


Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?


I've been through it with both of those Goobers before and between us the
ONLY people we can think of who have good reason to oppose considering the lives
of livestock are eliminationists. NO OTHER group of people have good reason to
oppose it, so that's one reason to believe the Goos are eliminationists. Another
reason is that "Dutch" ADMITTED TO being an eliminationist when he first began
posting he

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"

"It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
killing them." - "Dutch"

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"

and it wasn't until he had been posting for a while that he started calling
himself Apostate and claimed to have changed his pov completely. Then later
after he claimed to have changed his pov entirely he began claiming that he had
begun to eat meat. But if he had, then he would have no reason to oppose
consideration for the lives of billions of livestock animals. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose it. So it seems much more likely that he's
lying about having begun to eat meat and support decent AW over elimination,
since he's still maniacally opposed to appreciating when decent AW successfully
results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals. One reason
he lies is because he's aware that true AW supporters do NOT respect
eliminationists or their opinions about livestock as we certainly should not, so
he's trying to gain respect he doesn't deserve from any true AW supporters that
he's able to fool into believing what he claims about himself.

Here's a test for you to see for yourself: Ask "Dutch" and Goo what their
oppositions to elimination are. I've challenged both of them on that countless
times and neither of them have ever been able to provide any opposition that's
even worth taking into consideration. In fact I don't remember them ever making
an attempt when challenged, but instead just making up excuses as to why they
wouldn't do it. Those are some of the reasons I have for considering them to be
lying eliminationists instead of actual AW supporters. Of course the high
percentage of dishonest things they say and try to get away with is more reason
on top of the others...

  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:40:19 -0700, Goo confirmed my prediction:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.

No.


LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
it's hilarious Goo.

life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.

You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.


It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:


No.


LOL!!! I know you can't even make an attempt to explain Goo, as I correctly
predicted and you just proved for me. LOL....

(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)


  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:00:48 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:53:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:52:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

dh quoted Goo:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:


Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

Show it.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

You didn't show it.

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.

You

Goober as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with
yourself about any of your quotes then YOU need to try explaining HOW you want
people to think you think you do. But you can't even make an attempt Goob
because you agree with yourself about every bit of it. You agree with yourself
about every one of the quotes I presented, Goo.

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


If you want anyone to think I'm lying Goob, it's up to YOU to try explaining
how you want them to think you think you disagree with yourself about ANY OF
your claims. Since you can't Goober, it's a clear sign that you do agree with
yourself about every one of your quotes and can't even pretend that you don't.


Everyone already does.


It should be clear to everyone by your inability to even attempt to explain
how you want people to think you think you disagree with yourself about ANY of
your quotes, that you agree with yourself about all of them Goob.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:06:43 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:59 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:45 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, [email protected] pointed out:

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

It's a forgery - not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.


It's YOUR quote Goo, but if you want to pretend it's a forgery then try
presenting some reason to think so. Also Goob, if you want people to think you
think you disagree with yourself about any of your above quotes, then YOU need
to try explaining how you want them to think you do. Try now Goo. GO!:


Not anyone's quote


That's a blatant lie Goo since it's YOUR quote. Not only did you lie
blatantly and obviously Goo, but you also PROVED my prediction correct.

(correct prediction: the Goober can't explain how he wants people to think he
thinks he disagrees with himself about any of his quotes that I share, because
he agrees with himself about every one of them)

  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:




If you want people to think you disagree with

It's a forgery - not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with


It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.


It's YOUR quote


Not anyone's quote, Goo. It's your ham-handed shitty editing job. It's
bullshit - not what anyone actually said.



  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

Show it.

[snip mangled fake quotes]

I showed that

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

as always if you want people to think


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


If you want anyone to think I'm lying


Everyone already does.

  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

So do animals in similar positions.


No.


LOL!!! The idea that


No.



You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.


It often appears that it is a benefit


No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, ****wit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, ****wit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, ****wit.

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon in Buford, GA, lied:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch wrote:

Rupert wrote:

So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less


*YOU* believe the unconceived animals are morally considerable
"somethings", Goo:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon in Buford, GA, lied:

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


It's obvious that George is lying, and


No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would
experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing".
But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing."
  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon in Buford, GA, lied:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


Here's how we know George has been lying about this for years.


I'm *not* lying about it, ****wit. You *do* believe the "unborn
animals" will experience a "loss" if something "prevents" them from
being conceived and born and "getting to experience life." This has
been proved.

Here's how we know you were lying when you said you considered the
unconceived farm animals to be just "nothing", ****wit:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2012, 01:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch wrote:

Rupert wrote:

So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives


BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep
you from being labelled a ****wit.


or not much less can
you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
incapable of even making an attempt.

BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
consider the possibility unlike yourself.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
on individual interpretation.


Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as
you do, is moronic.

Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
out that they don't?


You pose it as a fact that we should consider as unfavorable for them,
that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".

You're bobbing and weaving trying to hide from your own position, you've
been doing that for several years.

Do you think it's an attack on Zebras when people point out
that they have stripes?


Stripes on zebras don't depend on non-existent animals "getting to
experience life".

Do you think it's an attack on meat consumers to point
out that they contribute to life for livestock?


I think that from the standpoint of assessing morals and ethics, which
is what we are supposed to be doing here, it is a totally meaningless
fact, just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives
is, in and of itself, totally meaningless.

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


That's a blatant lie I doubt anyone is stupid enough to believe...except
MAYBE for yourself, but doubt even you are honestly that stupid.


If you don't believe in non-existent animals then you can't criticize
vegans for not "bringing them into existence".

Since billions of people DO believe in multiple lives, why is it so
important to you Goos to get people to think I do to? Do you even have an idea
why it's important to you for people to believe that particular lie? What if I
was a Hindu and did believe it? Then what?


Your idiocy never ends.


  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2012, 04:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

[email protected] wrote:

"Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."



There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2012, 06:03 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

"Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."



There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.


****wit thinks there are.

  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2012, 09:45 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 2 Aug., 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:









On 2 Aug., 17:11, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. *Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.


That was very wobbly.


I would be interested in knowing why you think that.


Really?


Yes.









Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?


snicker


If it's a rational belief, there must be a rational foundation for it.


There is.


But you choose not to share it with us.
  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-08-2012, 03:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/3/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 2 Aug., 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:









On 2 Aug., 17:11, George Plimpton wrote:
Wobbly Woopert, wasting more low-value time, blabbered:


I'm afraid


Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.


You should get back on them, or else very unpleasant wobbliness will result.


I am taking them as prescribed.


Clearly you aren't. Increased wobbliness is in stark evidence.


There are many things you think you know which you don't.


That was very wobbly.


I would be interested in knowing why you think that.


Really?


Yes.









Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Can you be more specific?


yawn


Your belief that I hate you is irrational.


It isn't.


Then why are you unable to supply a rational foundation for it?


snicker


If it's a rational belief, there must be a rational foundation for it.


There is.


But you choose not to share it with us.


Yes.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dietary ethics [email protected] Vegan 0 03-07-2012 05:42 PM
Dietary Question Virginia Tadrzynski[_2_] General Cooking 33 02-03-2010 04:16 AM
Attitudes toward dietary adversity Christine Dabney General Cooking 143 18-01-2008 12:27 AM
Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection bobbie sellers Chocolate 0 04-08-2006 06:18 PM
Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics medianext05 Diabetic 1 10-07-2006 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017