|
Dietary ethics
On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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? You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple English sentences. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >> 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? > > You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple > English sentences. When? |
Dietary ethics
On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> 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. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> 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? >> >>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple >>> English sentences. >> >> When? > > On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" What? |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> 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? > > >>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple > >>> English sentences. > > >> When? > > > On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" > > What? Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> 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? >> >>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple >>>>> English sentences. >> >>>> When? >> >>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" >> >> What? > > Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? Yes. |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> 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? > > >>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple > >>>>> English sentences. > > >>>> When? > > >>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" > > >> What? > > > Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? > > Yes. What have you been up to? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >> >>>>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple >>>>>>> English sentences. >> >>>>>> When? >> >>>>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" >> >>>> What? >> >>> Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? >> >> Yes. > > What have you been up to? Several things. |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 6, 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> 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? > > >>>>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple > >>>>>>> English sentences. > > >>>>>> When? > > >>>>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" > > >>>> What? > > >>> Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? > > >> Yes. > > > What have you been up to? > > Several things. Fascinating. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 6, 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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? >> >>>>>>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple >>>>>>>>> English sentences. >> >>>>>>>> When? >> >>>>>>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" >> >>>>>> What? >> >>>>> Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? >> >>>> Yes. >> >>> What have you been up to? >> >> Several things. > > Fascinating. Somewhat. |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 6, 16:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 6, 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 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? > > >>>>>>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple > >>>>>>>>> English sentences. > > >>>>>>>> When? > > >>>>>>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" > > >>>>>> What? > > >>>>> Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? > > >>>> Yes. > > >>> What have you been up to? > > >> Several things. > > > Fascinating. > > Somewhat. Do you think that desires can be intrinsically irrational? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 8:04 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 6, 16:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/6/2012 7:51 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 6, 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2012 7:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 6, 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2012 1:49 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 6, 05:46, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2012 2:46 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 22:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 8:27 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4 Aug., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >> >>>>>>>>>>> You seem to enjoy pretending you can't understand perfectly simple >>>>>>>>>>> English sentences. >> >>>>>>>>>> When? >> >>>>>>>>> On those occasions when you posted "Huh?" >> >>>>>>>> What? >> >>>>>>> Have you been making good use of your valuable time lately? >> >>>>>> Yes. >> >>>>> What have you been up to? >> >>>> Several things. >> >>> Fascinating. >> >> Somewhat. > > Do you think that desires can be intrinsically irrational? <chortle> |
Dietary ethics
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:11:50 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:49:47 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>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??? > >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." They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not be confused by it. You stupid Goober. |
Dietary ethics
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>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 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. > >BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >you from being labelled a ****wit. I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct. >> 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. LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!! >> 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 Because it's a fact. >that we should consider as unfavorable for them, >that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack". I post in favor of decent AW and appreciation for when it's successful, and eliminationists oppose that because it works against elimination. DUH!!! >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, It's not meaningless because you people are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into consideration, showing that it means something to you. If it didn't work against elimination THEN it would be meaningless to you, but since it DOES work against elimination it has enough meaning to you that you don't mind maniacally opposing it for over a decade. >just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives >is, in and of itself, totally meaningless. No it's not, since apparently you're opposed to that being pointed out too. > >> 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. LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You goobers really are pathetic. |
Dietary ethics
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. 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, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal. |
Dietary ethics
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote:
>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. "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison tried to weasel away from this idiotic beliefs
expressed in his ****witted idiotic manner: >>>>> 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, >> >> 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." > > They exist as a concept No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than just 'nothing'", meaning you think they are *SOMETHING*, Goo. You think, long before any given livestock exist, that they are morally considerable *somethings*, Goo. You think they are *owed* some kind of moral consideration, Goo, and you berate "vegans" - stupidly - for not giving that consideration. There's a good reason they don't give it, ****wit: to them, as to all sane people, the unconceived animals *ARE* "just nothing", and therefore no consideration is owed. There is no moral reason for "vegans" - or anyone else, in fact - to think that "future farm animals" ought to come into existence except for *our* benefit. No moral "consideration" is owed to the non-existent animals, ****wit, and no one is doing anything wrong by not giving it. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> 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 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. >> >> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >> you from being labelled a ****wit. > > I pointed out something else you can't attempt No, you didn't. >>> 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. Meaningless. There's no reason they should provide any such opportunity. >> >> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as >> you do, is moronic. > > LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack You intend it as one. You have not made a meaningful criticism. >>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to >>> future lives for livestock, They have no reason to do that. >> >> 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". > > I post in favor of decent AW No, you don't. >> You're bobbing and weaving trying to hide from your own position, you've >> been doing that for several years. *Trying* to do it for years, but failing. >>> 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". No response, I see...figures. >>> 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, > > It's not meaningless It's meaningless. >> just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives >> is, in and of itself, totally meaningless. > > No it's not, It is. It has no meaning at all. >>>> 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 It's not. You've said it in various ways dozens of times over the years. You believe non-existent animals can experience "loss", "deprivation", "denial", "unfairness" - you've said all of those. >> >> If you don't believe in non-existent animals then you can't criticize >> vegans for not "bringing them into existence". Another fact you can't answer, ****wit. >>> Since billions of people DO believe in multiple lives, Irrelevant. >> >> Your idiocy never ends. > > LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people > to think I believe in multiple lives, No one cares if you believe in "multiple lives" or not. The simple fact *IS*, that you believe non-existent animals are owed some kind of moral consideration today, and that's just stupid. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. 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? |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison tried to weasel away from this idiotic beliefs
expressed in his ****witted idiotic manner: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, George Plimpton wrote: > >> 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. > > "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - George Plimpton Not a quote. Here's what was said: Prof. Geo. Plimpton: Animals that exist or are about to exist merit consideration. Animals that haven't even been conceived deserve none. This is not in dispute. Wobbly Woopert McCallum: It's interesting that you say "animals that are about to exist" as if it means something. Prof. Geo. Plimpton: If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, and whose welfare I can affect. Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare before they are born? As usual, ****wit, when you mangle something I wrote, I always catch you and kick your flabby doughy ass over it. |
Dietary ethics
On Aug 7, 12:23*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote: > > > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >> dh@. 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. |
Dietary ethics
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> 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 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. >> >> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >> you from being labelled a ****wit. > > I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct. You proved that you're a moron. > >>> 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. > > LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!! I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.." That's horseshit. >>> 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 > > Because it's a fact. Yes, with no importance. > >> that we should consider as unfavorable for them, >> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack". > > I post in favor of decent AW No you don't, that's your smokescreen, stop lying. > and appreciation for when it's successful, and > eliminationists oppose that because it works against elimination. DUH!!! You're lying. >> 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, > > It's not meaningless because you people are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into > consideration, No it's just meaningless. showing that it means something to you. If it didn't work against > elimination THEN it would be meaningless to you, but since it DOES work against > elimination it has enough meaning to you that you don't mind maniacally opposing > it for over a decade. Because it's always been meaningless. > >> just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives >> is, in and of itself, totally meaningless. > > No it's not, since apparently you're opposed to that being pointed out too. Yes it is 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. > > LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people > to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You > goobers really are pathetic. It just keeps getting worse for you, what is pathetic is that you can't see it. > |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>> dh@. 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. That's what he meant when he wrote, 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. ****wit - 08/01/2000 When he wrote "if nothing prevents that from happening", he wasn't referring to inducing abortions in pregnant animals, you ****ing idiot - he meant if nothing prevents the breeding and conception of animals in the first place. That's what "vegans" want: an end to the breeding of livestock. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>> dh@. 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 pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal." |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>> dh@. 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. |
Why God doesn't exist, theists pretend he's hiding ( Dietary ethics)
Rupert > wrote:
> > > > Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. =A0As ****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 pregnant > animal carries at least one unborn animal." > If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable. If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist. Of course, it could be that God is detectable in principle, and that we merely cannot detect him in practice. However, if the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Why has the situation changed? Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be. But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist? |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>>> dh@. 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." Then you wrote "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?" So it was reasonable for me to believe that you were talking about animals that have been conceived but not born. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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. You're just being ****y again, on the way to another bout of wobbliness. |
There's only one designer, humans! ( 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. Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the form of earthly based DNA life-forms. |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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? |
Dietary ethics
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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 ****. |
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. |
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, dh@. wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
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. |
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. |
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, dh@. wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter