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
  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 04:50 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)

On 8/8/2012 8:37 AM, Samuel Harrigon wrote:
George Plimpton wrote:

He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.

Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has

already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
look designed to the naive, but


This isn't about design vs evolution, you ****wit. Shut up.


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 04:52 PM 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 aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


* * * * * *LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? *That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. *Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. *As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means..


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. *Focus on the obvious: *****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. *When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. *He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn
animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an
animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born. It is
beyond rational dispute, to borrow one of your phrases. Your claim to
the contrary strikes me as absurd, as does your claim that it doesn't
strike me as absurd.
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:38 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Default Christian morality? Kill all the women and children ( Dietary ethics)

George Plimpton wrote:

He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has

already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to
kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you
are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman
who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found
four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they
brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:38 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Default Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics)

Rupert wrote:
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. =A0He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. =A0He's done this before.

****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd.



It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that
sense, it can be said to be "antireligion." However, when religious
believers speak of atheists being "antireligious" they usually mean that
the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.

This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite
unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad
spectrum.

Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned,
they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close
friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially
acceptable" in many countries.

A few atheists are quite antireligious, and may even try to "convert"
others when possible. Historically, such antireligious atheists have
made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.

(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to
separation of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were
legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state
atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and
tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the
population.)

Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they
see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business--for
example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually
concerned that church and state should remain separate.

  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:55 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 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. Focus on the obvious: ****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. This is obvious - even to you.



  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:06 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Default Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics)

On 8/8/2012 9:38 AM, BroilJAB wrote:
Rupert wrote:
is not what he means.

He's bullshitting. =A0He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. =A0He's done this before.

****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd.



It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;


Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief.

  #202 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:13 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
Default Theists mistaken on atheism ( Dietary ethics)

Rupert wrote:
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly

blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn
animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an
animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born. It is
beyond rational dispute, to borrow one of your phrases. Your claim to
the contrary strikes me as absurd, as does your claim that it doesn't
strike me as absurd.


The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses
"atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.
Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority)
would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly
dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold
that an atheist is a person without a belief in God.
The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means
that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to
affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be
without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no
importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not
a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying
the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the
lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see
this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and
"-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods.
The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means
"not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist
(i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it
means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or
without a belief in God.

  #203 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:14 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Default Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics))

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd.


It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief.


America was not established to have any dominant ideology, The United
States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every
opinion could be heard and considered. Today we must consider the
various ideas and opinions as they are presented in great newspapers and
reference books.

And so it is of the utmost importance that these ideas and opinions be
presented honestly, by the people who accept them, believe in them, and
are convinced they are the best answers to the problems under
consideration. Then, and only then, will people have any real
opportunity to make an intelligent decision about the beliefs they are
investigating. The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.

  #204 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:14 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 63
Default Christian morality? Kill all the women and children ( Dietary ethics)

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:38:36 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by BroilJAB
:

George Plimpton wrote:

He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.

Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has

already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to
kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you
are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman
who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found
four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they
brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.


The fact that you seem to believe this is even remotely
relevant to the subject is your problem.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless
  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:15 PM 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 aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


* * * * * * LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? *That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. *Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. *As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. *Focus on the obvious: *****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. *When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. *He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. *This is obvious - even to you.


No, it's not. In any event my remark:

'When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn
animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an
animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born.'

was unassailable.


  #206 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:17 PM posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Default Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand

On 8/8/2012 10:14 AM, BroilJAB wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd.


It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief.


America was not established to have any dominant ideology,


Shut the **** up. No one is interested.

  #207 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:18 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 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. Focus on the obvious: ****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. This is obvious - even to you.


No, it's not.


Yes, it is, time-waster.

****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
played.

  #208 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:28 PM 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 aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


* * * * * * *LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? *That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. *Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. *As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. *Focus on the obvious: *****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. *When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. *He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. *This is obvious - even to you.


No, it's not.


Yes, it is, time-waster.

****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
played.


You're a fool.
  #209 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:36 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 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. Focus on the obvious: ****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. This is obvious - even to you.


No, it's not.


Yes, it is, time-waster.

****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
played.


You're a fool.


non sequitur

  #210 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2012, 06:36 PM 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 aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote:









On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, 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.


* * * * * * * LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,


Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? *That's what we've been
saying you believe all along. *Why do you deny believing it when it is
so obvious that you *do* believe it?


Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
exist before they are conceived.


Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. *As ****wit uses it, "unborn
animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.


The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
of lies, every pregnant
animal carries at least one unborn animal."


He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
"future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.


Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
is not what he means.


He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.


****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.


Your claims strike me as absurd.


No, they don't.


Why do you think that?


Forget that, time-waster. *Focus on the obvious: *****wit is
equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. *When he
****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. *He is
talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.


When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies,


When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. *This is obvious - even to you.


No, it's not.


Yes, it is, time-waster.


****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
played.


You're a fool.


non sequitur


Why would that be?


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 11:36 PM.

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