 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics)
On 8/8/2012 9:38 AM, BroilJAB wrote:
> Rupert > wrote: >>>> is not what he means. >>> >>> He's bullshitting. =A0He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >>> already patiently explained to you. =A0He's done this before. >>> >>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd. >> > > It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or > "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut. > > Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Theists mistaken on atheism ( Dietary ethics)
Rupert > wrote:
> > Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly > blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn > animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an > animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born. It is > beyond rational dispute, to borrow one of your phrases. Your claim to > the contrary strikes me as absurd, as does your claim that it doesn't > strike me as absurd. > The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief. When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics))
"james g. keegan jr." > wrote:
> >>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core > >>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd. > >> > > > > It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or > > "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut. > > > > Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief. America was not established to have any dominant ideology, The United States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every opinion could be heard and considered. Today we must consider the various ideas and opinions as they are presented in great newspapers and reference books. And so it is of the utmost importance that these ideas and opinions be presented honestly, by the people who accept them, believe in them, and are convinced they are the best answers to the problems under consideration. Then, and only then, will people have any real opportunity to make an intelligent decision about the beliefs they are investigating. The American people have a right to know that in Atheism there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Christian morality? Kill all the women and children ( Dietary ethics)
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:38:36 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by BroilJAB >: >George Plimpton > wrote: >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. >> > >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means. > >So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to >kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you >are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman >who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found >four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they >brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan. The fact that you seem to believe this is even remotely relevant to the subject is your problem. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. No, it's not. In any event my remark: 'When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born.' was unassailable. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand
On 8/8/2012 10:14 AM, BroilJAB wrote:
> "james g. keegan jr." > wrote: >>>>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd. >>>> >>> >>> It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or >>> "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut. >>> >>> Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief. > > America was not established to have any dominant ideology, Shut the **** up. No one is interested. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > No, it's not. Yes, it is, time-waster. ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be played. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > > No, it's not. > > Yes, it is, time-waster. > > ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > played. You're a fool. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>> No, it's not. >> >> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >> played. > > You're a fool. non sequitur |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>> No, it's not. > > >> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >> played. > > > You're a fool. > > non sequitur Why would that be? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>> played. >> >>> You're a fool. >> >> non sequitur > > Why would that be? Look it up, time-waster. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>> played. >> >>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>> non sequitur >> >>> Why would that be? >> >> Look it up, time-waster. > > It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > premises." It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, you squat-to-**** douchebag. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>> played. > > >>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>> non sequitur > > >>> Why would that be? > > >> Look it up, time-waster. > > > It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > > premises." > > It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > you squat-to-**** douchebag. So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you are a fool? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>> premises." >> >> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > are a fool? Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Atheist means NOT A THEIST ( Dietary ethics)
Rupert > wrote:
> > > > >> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core > > >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means. > > > > > Your claims strike me as absurd. > > > > No, they don't.Why do you think that? > If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>> premises." > > >> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > > So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > > are a fool? > > Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. These remarks strike me as foolish. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>> premises." >> >>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>> are a fool? >> >> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > These remarks strike me as foolish. No, you're just babbling - wasting time. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>> premises." > > >>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>> are a fool? > > >> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > > These remarks strike me as foolish. > > No, you're just babbling - wasting time. So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>> are a fool? >> >>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? You're just wasting time. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism
|
|||
|
|||
|
Theists in their infancy ( Dietary ethics)
George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> > >> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > > > So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > > are a fool?Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play > you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical > thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me.You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Do you believe something because it's popular??? ( Dietary ethics)
George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>> played. > >> > >>> You're a fool. > >> > >> non sequitur > > > > Why would that be?Look it up, time-waster. "Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?" Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudosciences. Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand. Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other purposes as well. For instance, for many people religion fulfills a social function, providing a sense of community and belonging. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Aug 8, 8:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>> are a fool? > > >>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > > So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > You're just wasting time. So are you. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >> You're just wasting time. > > So are you. No. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Aug 9, 9:04*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >> You're just wasting time. > > > So are you. > > No. How do you figure that? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>> So are you. >> >> No. > > How do you figure that? <chortle> |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >>>> You're just wasting time. > > >>> So are you. > > >> No. > > > How do you figure that? > > <chortle> You have a merry disposition. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>> So are you. >> >>>> No. >> >>> How do you figure that? >> >> <chortle> > > You have a merry disposition. Usually, yes. ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for thinking he might mean something else. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >>>>>> You're just wasting time. > > >>>>> So are you. > > >>>> No. > > >>> How do you figure that? > > >> <chortle> > > > You have a merry disposition. > > Usually, yes. > > ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. *****wit thinks > they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > consideration. *He's an idiot for thinking that. *You're an idiot for > thinking he might mean something else. When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals that have already been conceived. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>>>> So are you. >> >>>>>> No. >> >>>>> How do you figure that? >> >>>> <chortle> >> >>> You have a merry disposition. >> >> Usually, yes. >> >> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist >> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks >> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral >> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for >> thinking he might mean something else. > > When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one > unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals > that have already been conceived. When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central thesis. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. > > >>>>>>> So are you. > > >>>>>> No. > > >>>>> How do you figure that? > > >>>> <chortle> > > >>> You have a merry disposition. > > >> Usually, yes. > > >> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > >> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. *****wit thinks > >> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > >> consideration. *He's an idiot for thinking that. *You're an idiot for > >> thinking he might mean something else. > > > When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one > > unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals > > that have already been conceived. > > When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not > recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just > spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central > thesis. I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. I think you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already been conceived. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>> So are you. >> >>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>> How do you figure that? >> >>>>>> <chortle> >> >>>>> You have a merry disposition. >> >>>> Usually, yes. >> >>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist >>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks >>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral >>>> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for >>>> thinking he might mean something else. >> >>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one >>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals >>> that have already been conceived. >> >> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not >> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just >> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central >> thesis. > > I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion. > I think > you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is. > I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals > carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already > been conceived. Irrelevant. Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9 Aug., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. > > >>>>>>>>> So are you. > > >>>>>>>> No. > > >>>>>>> How do you figure that? > > >>>>>> <chortle> > > >>>>> You have a merry disposition. > > >>>> Usually, yes. > > >>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > >>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. *****wit thinks > >>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > >>>> consideration. *He's an idiot for thinking that. *You're an idiot for > >>>> thinking he might mean something else. > > >>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one > >>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals > >>> that have already been conceived. > > >> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not > >> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just > >> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central > >> thesis. > > > I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. > > You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion.. > No, I simply observe the obvious truth about what it means. > > I think > > you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". > > You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is.. > > > I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals > > carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already > > been conceived. > > Irrelevant. Well, it's all that I've been saying. >*Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to > do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to > "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. Nevertheless, they are what he was talking about on this occasion. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 8:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So are you. >> >>>>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>>>> How do you figure that? >> >>>>>>>> <chortle> >> >>>>>>> You have a merry disposition. >> >>>>>> Usually, yes. >> >>>>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist >>>>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks >>>>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral >>>>>> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for >>>>>> thinking he might mean something else. >> >>>>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one >>>>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals >>>>> that have already been conceived. >> >>>> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not >>>> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just >>>> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central >>>> thesis. >> >>> I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. >> >> You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion. >> > > No, I simply observe the obvious truth about what it means. It's a ****witted attempt at evasion, but you allow yourself to be played like a violin. >>> I think >>> you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". >> >> You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is. >> >>> I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals >>> carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already >>> been conceived. >> >> Irrelevant. > > Well, it's all that I've been saying. It was just pointless time-wasting on your part, yet again. >> Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to >> do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to >> "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. > > Nevertheless, they are what he was talking about on this occasion. Irrelevant. You may take ****wit's ****witted attempts at evasion seriously, if you wish, but it makes you look stupid and in fact it *is* stupid to do so. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9 Aug., 17:54, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 8:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On 9 Aug., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. *You *are* letting ****wit play > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. *You're an idiot. *You're incapable of critical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. *That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So are you. > > >>>>>>>>>> No. > > >>>>>>>>> How do you figure that? > > >>>>>>>> <chortle> > > >>>>>>> You have a merry disposition. > > >>>>>> Usually, yes. > > >>>>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > >>>>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. *****wit thinks > >>>>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > >>>>>> consideration. *He's an idiot for thinking that. *You're an idiot for > >>>>>> thinking he might mean something else. > > >>>>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one > >>>>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals > >>>>> that have already been conceived. > > >>>> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not > >>>> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just > >>>> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central > >>>> thesis. > > >>> I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. > > >> You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion. > > > No, I simply observe the obvious truth about what it means. > > It's a ****witted attempt at evasion, but you allow yourself to be > played like a violin. > How do you figure that? > >>> I think > >>> you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". > > >> You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is. > > >>> I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals > >>> carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already > >>> been conceived. > > >> Irrelevant. > > > Well, it's all that I've been saying. > > It was just pointless time-wasting on your part, yet again. > Well, you were the one who wanted to argue with me about it. > >> * Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to > >> do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to > >> "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. > > > Nevertheless, they are what he was talking about on this occasion. > > Irrelevant. Well, it's all I've been saying. > *You may take ****wit's ****witted attempts at evasion > seriously, if you wish, but it makes you look stupid and in fact it *is* > stupid to do so. It's not a question of taking it seriously, just observing the obvious truth about what it means. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
George Plimpton > wrote:
> > unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals > > that have already been conceived. > > When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not > recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just > spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central > thesis. > The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack. The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
George Plimpton > wrote:
> Usually, yes. > > ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks > they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for > thinking he might mean something else. > Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent. Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds. It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control--and condoms in particular--is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS worldwide. Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder on the grounds of blasphemy. There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used as an effective justification for them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 17:54, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 8:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On 9 Aug., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure that? >> >>>>>>>>>> <chortle> >> >>>>>>>>> You have a merry disposition. >> >>>>>>>> Usually, yes. >> >>>>>>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist >>>>>>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks >>>>>>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral >>>>>>>> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for >>>>>>>> thinking he might mean something else. >> >>>>>>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one >>>>>>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals >>>>>>> that have already been conceived. >> >>>>>> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not >>>>>> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just >>>>>> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central >>>>>> thesis. >> >>>>> I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. >> >>>> You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion. >> >>> No, I simply observe the obvious truth about what it means. >> >> It's a ****witted attempt at evasion, but you allow yourself to be >> played like a violin. >> > > How do you figure that? How do I figure what? That it's an evasion having nothing to do with his complaint against "vegans"? I've explained that. That you're being played like a violin? Because you keep taking the attempted evasion seriously. >>>>> I think >>>>> you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". >> >>>> You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is. >> >>>>> I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals >>>>> carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already >>>>> been conceived. >> >>>> Irrelevant. >> >>> Well, it's all that I've been saying. >> >> It was just pointless time-wasting on your part, yet again. >> > > Well, you were the one who wanted to argue with me about it. No, I wasn't "arguing" with you about it. I was instructing you that it's a pointless evasion having nothing to do with ****wit's central point, and that you're being played like a violin. That's not an argument - it's a statement of two facts. >>>> Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to >>>> do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to >>>> "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. >> >>> Nevertheless, they are what he was talking about on this occasion. >> >> Irrelevant. > > Well, it's all I've been saying. You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> You may take ****wit's ****witted attempts at evasion >> seriously, if you wish, but it makes you look stupid and in fact it *is* >> stupid to do so. > > It's not a question of taking it seriously, That's exactly what it is. |
|
Posted to alt.atheism,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
George Plimpton > wrote:
> Usually, yes. > > ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist > - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks > they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral > consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for > thinking he might mean something else. > "Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as some sort of excuse." This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy. What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves? In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends--but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a perversion of what your God intended? If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a Christian. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/9/2012 7:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9 Aug., 16:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> On 8/9/2012 7:17 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 9 Aug., 16:15, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> On 8/9/2012 7:10 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 9 Aug., 15:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 9:04 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 8:12 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 11:09 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 20:08, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:53 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:51, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:36 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:36, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> played. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non sequitur >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look it up, time-waster. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means "an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises." >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means anything that doesn't logically follow from what preceded it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you squat-to-**** douchebag. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why does it not logically follow from the remarks you made that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they clearly just don't follow. You *are* letting ****wit play >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you like a violin. You're an idiot. You're incapable of critical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking, even when you have assistance from Dutch and me. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a ****wit. That logically follows from an analysis of your behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These remarks strike me as foolish. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're just babbling - wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you think your remarks don't strike me as foolish? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're just wasting time. >> >>>>>>>>>>> So are you. >> >>>>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>>>> How do you figure that? >> >>>>>>>> <chortle> >> >>>>>>> You have a merry disposition. >> >>>>>> Usually, yes. >> >>>>>> ****wit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist >>>>>> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. ****wit thinks >>>>>> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral >>>>>> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for >>>>>> thinking he might mean something else. >> >>>>> When David Harrison says "every pregnant animal carries at least one >>>>> unborn animal", I am not an idiot for thinking that he means animals >>>>> that have already been conceived. >> >>>> When he says something like that, you are an idiot and a ****wit for not >>>> recognizing, despite expert coaching and guidance, that he's just >>>> spouting evasive bullshit having nothing to do with his absurd central >>>> thesis. >> >>> I never said it had anything to do with his central thesis. >> >> You take it seriously, when it clearly is a ****witted attempt at evasion. >> > > No, I simply observe the obvious truth about what it means. > >>> I think >>> you're being pretty generous to say that he has a "central thesis". >> >> You know what his central thesis or point - his irrational obsession - is. >> >>> I do not care about that. I simply observe the obvious: unborn animals >>> carried by pregnant animals are obviously animals who have already >>> been conceived. >> >> Irrelevant. > > Well, it's all that I've been saying. > >> Unborn animals carried by pregnant animals have nothing to >> do with ****wit's criticism of "vegans" for their failure/refusal to >> "consider" the lives of animals - nothing. > > Nevertheless, they are what he was talking about on this occasion. > It was a completely predictable diversionary tactic. I knew that he would say it when I wrote the original comment. "Unborn animals" in the context of this discussion means animals that do not yet exist in any form, animals who will never exist if vegans get their way. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Dietary ethics | Vegan | |||
| Dietary Question | General Cooking | |||
| Attitudes toward dietary adversity | General Cooking | |||
| Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection | Chocolate | |||
| Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics | Diabetic | |||
Linear Mode
