FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Dietary ethics (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/418673-re-dietary-ethics.html)

George Plimpton 02-08-2012 03:39 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
>>>>>> belief.

>>
>>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>>
>>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
>>>> contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
>>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
>>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
>>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
>>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
>>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
>>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
>>>> belief.

>>
>>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>>
>> No.
>>

>
> I'm afraid


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


>>>> Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
>>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
>>>> have proved.

>>

>
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
>>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
>>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
>>>>>>>>>> existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
>>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>>
>>>>>>>> I'm right.

>>
>>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>> You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.

>>
>>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
>>>>> by your argument.

>>
>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>>
>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>>
>> No.
>>

>
> That's very funny.


No.


>>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
>>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>>
>>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>>
>>>>>>> No,

>>
>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>>
>> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>
> Where do you see the evidence of hatred?


In your posts.


Rupert 02-08-2012 03:42 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On Aug 2, 4:38*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Aug., 15:38, George Plimpton > wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
> >>>>>>>>>>> argument.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
> >>>>>>>>>> as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
> >>>>>>>>>> proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
> >>>>>>>>>> experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, I don't remember any argument,

>
> >>>>>>>> Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.

>
> >>>>>>> I have an extremely good memory.

>
> >>>>>> No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
> >>>>>> contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
> >>>>>> experiencing them.

>
> >>>>> I do have an extremely good memory.

>
> >>>> No, you don't.

>
> >>> Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
> >>> position to know than you?

>
> >> No.

>
> > People in the grip of delusions often refuse to consider any
> > possibility that they might be wrong.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You were the one who exhibited psychosis.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle>

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question

>
> >>>>>>>>>> <guffaw>

>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you think I have delusions?

>
> >>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.

>
> >>>>> What are some examples?

>
> >>>> A delusion of competence, for one. *A delusion of being an ethicist, for
> >>>> another.

>
> >>> I do not believe that I am an ethicist

>
> >> You fancy yourself one.

>
> > You live in a fantasy world.

>
> No. *You *do* fancy yourself an ethicist. *You've even boasted of having
> been invited to give "talks" on ethics, as if you're qualified to do so.


No, I don't. However I am qualified to give talks on ethics.

A delusion of competence in what domain?

Rupert 02-08-2012 03:43 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On Aug 2, 4:39*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
> >>>>>> belief.

>
> >>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>
> >>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
> >>>> contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
> >>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
> >>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
> >>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
> >>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
> >>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
> >>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
> >>>> belief.

>
> >>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>
> >> No.

>
> > I'm afraid

>
> Because you've not been taking your anti-psychotic meds.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> * *Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
> >>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
> >>>> have proved.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> >>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> >>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> >>>>>>>>>> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> >>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>
> >>>>>>>> I'm right.

>
> >>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>> You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.

>
> >>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
> >>>>> by your argument.

>
> >>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>
> >>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>
> >> No.

>
> > That's very funny.

>
> No.
>


Well, I laughed.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>
> >>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>
> >>>>>>> No,

>
> >>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>
> >> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>
> > Where do you see the evidence of hatred?

>
> In your posts.


Can you be more specific?

George Plimpton 02-08-2012 03:50 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
>>>>>>>> belief.

>>
>>>>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>>
>>>>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
>>>>>> contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
>>>>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
>>>>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
>>>>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
>>>>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
>>>>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
>>>>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
>>>>>> belief.

>>
>>>>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>>
>>>> No.

>>
>>> 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.


>>>>>> Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
>>>>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
>>>>>> have proved.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
>>>>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm right.

>>
>>>>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>>>> You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.

>>
>>>>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
>>>>>>> by your argument.

>>
>>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>>
>>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>>
>>>> No.

>>
>>> That's very funny.

>>
>> No.
>>

>
> Well, I laughed.


Psychosis.


>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>>
>>>>>>>>> No,

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

>>
>>>>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>>
>>>> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>>
>>> Where do you see the evidence of hatred?

>>
>> In your posts.

>
> Can you be more specific?


<yawn>


Rupert 02-08-2012 03:51 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On Aug 2, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
> >>>>>>>> belief.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>
> >>>>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
> >>>>>> contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
> >>>>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
> >>>>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
> >>>>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
> >>>>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
> >>>>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
> >>>>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
> >>>>>> belief.

>
> >>>>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>
> >>>> No.

>
> >>> 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> * * Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
> >>>>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
> >>>>>> have proved.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm right.

>
> >>>>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>>>> You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.

>
> >>>>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
> >>>>>>> by your argument.

>
> >>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>
> >>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>
> >>>> No.

>
> >>> That's very funny.

>
> >> No.

>
> > Well, I laughed.

>
> Psychosis.
>


That was quite funny as well.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>
> >>>>>>>>> No,

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

>
> >>>>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>
> >>>> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>
> >>> 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.

George Plimpton 02-08-2012 04:02 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/2/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 4:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
>>>>>>>>>> belief.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>>
>>>>>>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
>>>>>>>> contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
>>>>>>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
>>>>>>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
>>>>>>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
>>>>>>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
>>>>>>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
>>>>>>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
>>>>>>>> belief.

>>
>>>>>>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>>
>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>> Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
>>>>>>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
>>>>>>>> have proved.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm right.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
>>>>>>>>> by your argument.

>>
>>>>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>>
>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>> That's very funny.

>>
>>>> No.

>>
>>> Well, I laughed.

>>
>> Psychosis.
>>

>
> That was quite funny as well.


That's lovely.


>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No,

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

>>
>>>>>>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>>
>>>>>> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>>
>>>>> 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.


Rupert 02-08-2012 04:06 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On Aug 2, 5:02*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Aug 2, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 8/2/2012 6:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Aug 2, 3:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
> >>>>>>>>>> belief.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, I must have misunderstood you

>
> >>>>>>>> They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
> >>>>>>>> contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
> >>>>>>>> sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
> >>>>>>>> "unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
> >>>>>>>> are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
> >>>>>>>> his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
> >>>>>>>> believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
> >>>>>>>> "nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
> >>>>>>>> belief.

>
> >>>>>>> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

>
> >>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>> 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> * * *Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
> >>>>>>>> "nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
> >>>>>>>> have proved.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm right.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you would appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
> >>>>>>>>> by your argument.

>
> >>>>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>
> >>>>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>
> >>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>> That's very funny.

>
> >>>> No.

>
> >>> Well, I laughed.

>
> >> Psychosis.

>
> > That was quite funny as well.

>
> That's lovely.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't hate you

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent for you.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think I hate you?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrationality.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No,

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

>
> >>>>>>> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

>
> >>>>>> What you write here, and your obsession with me.

>
> >>>>> 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?

George Plimpton 02-08-2012 04:11 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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.



>>>>>>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>>
>>>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>>>> That's very funny.

>>
>>>>>> No.

>>
>>>>> Well, I laughed.

>>
>>>> Psychosis.

>>
>>> That was quite funny as well.

>>
>> That's lovely.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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>


Rupert 02-08-2012 07:03 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

>
> >>>>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>>>> That's very funny.

>
> >>>>>> No.

>
> >>>>> Well, I laughed.

>
> >>>> Psychosis.

>
> >>> That was quite funny as well.

>
> >> That's lovely.

>
> >>>>>>> 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.
Why can't you just show us what the rational foundation is?

Dutch 02-08-2012 07:26 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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?


He is not prepared to accept that opponents of AR disagree with his pet
argument. There have been quite a few others too, before you came along,
when this was a very lively interesting forum, unlike now. I think there
may be a fuzzy area here between self-delusion (cognitive dissonance)
and outright lying. Is he lying is his brain just will not allow him to
accept the obvious truth? The difficultly in his case I think is that if
he allows himself to accept the flaw in his argument then he may be
forced to confront the same issue with his rationalization for raising
fighting cocks. "They get to experience life because he raises them"
gets him off the hook, he believes.


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 07:32 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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?


>>>>>>>>> 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.


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 07:37 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/2/2012 11:26 AM, Dutch wrote:
> 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?

>
> He is not prepared to accept that opponents of AR disagree with his pet
> argument.


He is either unable or unwilling to understand that his pet argument is
garbage. It has been demolished; there was never anything substantive
to it.

It does seem too implausible that ****wit wouldn't know that his
argument was destroyed more than a decade ago (actually, close to a
century ago.) The fact he sticks with it is part of the compelling
evidence that he is merely a troll.


> There have been quite a few others too, before you came along,
> when this was a very lively interesting forum, unlike now. I think there
> may be a fuzzy area here between self-delusion (cognitive dissonance)
> and outright lying. Is he lying is his brain just will not allow him to
> accept the obvious truth? The difficultly in his case I think is that if
> he allows himself to accept the flaw in his argument then he may be
> forced to confront the same issue with his rationalization for raising
> fighting cocks. "They get to experience life because he raises them"
> gets him off the hook, he believes.
>



dh@. 02-08-2012 09:49 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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 Goob has been lying about this for years. All the years
he's been lying about what I believe, Goo has also been aware that:

"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo

Here's the whole quote proving the Goober has known the entire time he has been
lying to people about this, and dishonestly posts only part of the quote in his
contemptible attempt to promote one of his favorite lies:

"Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration."

So we know Goo is deliberately lying. The question is WHY is Goo lying about
this particular thing, and making such a strong attempt to promote his lies? So
what if I did believe in multiple lives as billions of people do...so what??? I
don't. I do consider the possibility but don't have any true belief about it.
But what if I did? Why is it so important to the Goober to try to make people
believe this particular thing? How could Goo think it could possibly make him
ethically superior if he fools someone into believing his lies?

dh@. 02-08-2012 09:49 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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 Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard
trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did
believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.
Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the
possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why
is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?
How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???


dh@. 02-08-2012 09:50 PM

Dietary ethics
 
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 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. 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? Do you think it's an attack on Zebras when people point out
that they have stripes? Do you think it's an attack on meat consumers to point
out that they contribute to life for livestock?

>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.

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?

dh@. 02-08-2012 09:53 PM

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...

dh@. 02-08-2012 09:56 PM

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

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. 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)



dh@. 02-08-2012 09:56 PM

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

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:53:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:52:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:25 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh quoted Goo:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. 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.

dh@. 02-08-2012 09:56 PM

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

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:59 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. 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)


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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.


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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.


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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.


George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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



George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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."

George Plimpton 02-08-2012 10:11 PM

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

Dutch 03-08-2012 01:40 AM

Dietary ethics
 
dh@. 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.



Dutch 03-08-2012 04:36 AM

Dietary ethics
 
dh@. wrote:

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



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

George Plimpton 03-08-2012 06:03 AM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. 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.


Rupert 03-08-2012 09:45 AM

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.

George Plimpton 03-08-2012 03:42 PM

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.


Rupert 03-08-2012 03:44 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.


And why would that be?

George Plimpton 03-08-2012 03:46 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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.

>
> And why would that be?


Huh?


Rupert 03-08-2012 03:49 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> 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.

>
> > And why would that be?

>
> Huh?


You have difficulty understanding the question?

George Plimpton 03-08-2012 06:35 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> 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.

>>
>>> And why would that be?

>>
>> Huh?

>
> You have difficulty understanding the question?


What question?


Rupert 03-08-2012 07:28 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> 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.

>
> >>> And why would that be?

>
> >> Huh?

>
> > You have difficulty understanding the question?

>
> What question?


The question "And why would that be?", obviously.

George Plimpton 03-08-2012 08:49 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/3/2012 11:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>> And why would that be?

>>
>>>> Huh?

>>
>>> You have difficulty understanding the question?

>>
>> What question?

>
> The question "And why would that be?", obviously.


Okay.


Rupert 04-08-2012 09:42 AM

Dietary ethics
 
On 3 Aug., 21:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 11:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>>> And why would that be?

>
> >>>> Huh?

>
> >>> You have difficulty understanding the question?

>
> >> What question?

>
> > The question "And why would that be?", obviously.

>
> Okay.


You don't seem to want to answer the question.

George Plimpton 04-08-2012 03:47 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/4/2012 1:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Aug., 21:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 11:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>>> And why would that be?

>>
>>>>>> Huh?

>>
>>>>> You have difficulty understanding the question?

>>
>>>> What question?

>>
>>> The question "And why would that be?", obviously.

>>
>> Okay.

>
> You don't seem to want to answer the question.


Huh?


Rupert 04-08-2012 03:56 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 4 Aug., 16:47, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 1:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Aug., 21:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2012 11:28 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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.

>
> >>>>>>> And why would that be?

>
> >>>>>> Huh?

>
> >>>>> You have difficulty understanding the question?

>
> >>>> What question?

>
> >>> The question "And why would that be?", obviously.

>
> >> Okay.

>
> > You don't seem to want to answer the question.

>
> Huh?


Do you derive entertainment from pretending to be retarded?

George Plimpton 04-08-2012 04:20 PM

Dietary ethics
 
On 8/4/2012 7:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Aug., 16:47, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/4/2012 1:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Aug., 21:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2012 11:28 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 3 Aug., 19:35, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:49 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2012 7:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On aug. 3, 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>> And why would that be?

>>
>>>>>>>> Huh?

>>
>>>>>>> You have difficulty understanding the question?

>>
>>>>>> What question?

>>
>>>>> The question "And why would that be?", obviously.

>>
>>>> Okay.

>>
>>> You don't seem to want to answer the question.

>>
>> Huh?

>
> Do you derive entertainment from pretending to be retarded?


How so?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 PM.

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