|
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 10:28 AM, Dutch wrote:
> 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. Yes, it was. He's done it before, and he got his ass kicked on it then, too. He doesn't care - whenever ****wit is losing, he tries an evasion/diversion. > 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. Exactly. And wobbly Woopert *knows* that's what the discussion is about, too. When he starts taking ****wit's bullshit evasion/diversion seriously, he is letting himself be played like a violin. |
Dietary ethics
Dutch > wrote:
> > 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. > If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 9, 18:52, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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. > No, I don't. > >>>>> 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. > It is not a fact that I am being played like a violin, and I have no interest in what David Harrison's "central point" is. > >>>> * *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 have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > >> * 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. Wrong. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 11:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 9, 18:52, George Plimpton > wrote: >> 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. >> > > No, I don't. > >>>>>>> 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. >> > > It is not a fact that I am being played like a violin, and I have no > interest in what David Harrison's "central point" is. > >>>>>> 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 have been wasting time at least as much as I have. No. >>>> 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. > > Wrong. No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. |
Dietary ethics
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it? >>>>> >>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it >>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it. >>>> >>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can >>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are >>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to >>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing >>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very >>>> incapable of even making an attempt. >>> >>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >>> you from being labelled a ****wit. >> >> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct. > >You proved that you're a moron. > >> >>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to >>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself. >>>> >>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their >>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW". >>>> >>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend >>>> on individual interpretation. >>> >>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as >>> you do, is moronic. >> >> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!! > >I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are >not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.." >That's horseshit. > > >>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to >>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point >>>> out that they don't? >>> >>> You pose it as a fact >> >> Because it's a fact. > >Yes, with no importance. It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination. It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into consideration. >>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them, >>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack". >> >> I post in favor of decent AW > >No you don't, That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a stupidly blatant lie, if anyone? .. . . >> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people >> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You >> goobers really are pathetic. > >It just keeps getting worse for you LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what you think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in multiple lives. This reveals your and the Goober's ineptitude in a very clear and amusing way, from my pov. |
Dietary ethics
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:29:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:45 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote: >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." >>>> >>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. >>> >>>****wit thinks there are. >> >> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo .. . . > If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of > the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, > and whose welfare I can affect. Your first remark is no less stupid just because you put it before another remark Goob. The stupidity factor of that particular remark remains, while the stupidity factor of you overall increases because you thought you could reduce some of the stupidity of your first remark by adding another POSSIBLY slightly less stupid remark. I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go: (prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt, though it could be great fun if he would try) >Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare >before they are born? Goober, you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade. Are you now changing your position entirely and saying that it's finally okay for people to take both into consideration, Goo? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/9/2012 1:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it? >>>>>> >>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it >>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it. >>>>> >>>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can >>>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are >>>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to >>>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing >>>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very >>>>> incapable of even making an attempt. >>>> >>>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >>>> you from being labelled a ****wit. >>> >>> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct. >> >> You proved that you're a moron. Exactly. >>> >>>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to >>>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their >>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW". >>>>> >>>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend >>>>> on individual interpretation. >>>> >>>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as >>>> you do, is moronic. >>> >>> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!! >> >> I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are >> not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.." >> That's horseshit. It sure is horseshit. ****wit has never made a single substantive criticism of "vegans". >>>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to >>>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point >>>>> out that they don't? >>>> >>>> You pose it as a fact >>> >>> Because it's a fact. >> >> Yes, with no importance. > > It has importance to It has no importance - period. People who favor <guffaw> "decent aw" do not favor it "over" elimination - they favor it over bad welfare. >>>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them, >>>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack". >>> >>> I post in favor of decent AW >> >> No you don't, > > That's as blatant a lie as It's not a lie. You don't care about "decent AW" <chortle> at all. Your posts have proved that. I'll repost "No consideration for animals' lives" as soon as I'm done with this post. It proves you don't care about <snicker> "decent AW" at all. > . . . >>> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people >>> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You >>> goobers really are pathetic. >> >> It just keeps getting worse for you > > LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that You have no substantive criticism of "vegans" and their wish to stop the breeding of livestock. That's *truly* hilarious! |
Dietary ethics
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012, the Gooberdoodle wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:24 -0400, 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, every pregnant >>animal carries at least one unborn animal. > >Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? Every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal Goob. It's what pregnant means, Goo. >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? Goober it's stupid not to believe in unborn animals just because you can't see them. Here's a clue for you Goo: you can't see unborn animals because they are inside of their mother. You can see some unborn fish though Goob, so you should Google that to see that you can see some of them and they do exist. What you're bewildered and confused about Gooberdoodle, is the difference between unborn animals and potential future beings who are as yet unconceived. Until conception there is no being afawk Goo. Whether or not any beings have multiple lives is something we can't know Goob, so there's no real reason to have a belief about it one way or the other. |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid
core beliefs again: >>>>> >>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." >>>>> >>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. >>>> >>>> ****wit thinks there are. >>> >>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" Fake "quote". The real quote is right below. > . . . >> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of >> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, >> and whose welfare I can affect. > > Your first remark is no less stupid just It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn animals currently being gestated by pregnant females. > I challenge you No. No, you *never* make any challenge. You can't. >> Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare >> before they are born? > > you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both > existing livestock False. > and potential future livestock Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to experience life." *IF* an animal exists, its welfare deserves consideration (which you admittedly don't give.) If no more livestock animals exist, the fact that there won't be any "they" who "get to experience life" deserves no moral consideration at all. That's a fact that drives you insane, but it is a fact. |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid
core beliefs again: >>>> >>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." >>>> >>>> >>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. >>> >>> LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies, every pregnant >>> animal carries at least one unborn animal. >> >> Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? > > Every pregnant animal Not what we're talking about, ****wit - proved. Your attempt at evasion failed. Time for you to move on to some new ****wittery. >> 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? > > it's stupid not to believe in unborn animals just because you can't > see them. We're not talking about animal fetuses in stages of development, ****wit. We never were. You know it, too. Also, wobbly Woopert knows that's not what we ever were talking about. > What you're bewildered and confused about is the difference > between unborn animals and potential future beings who No confusion. In the context of your *FAILED* effort to criticize "vegans", Goo - you are Goo, of course - "unborn animals" and "potential future [farm animal] beings" are synonymous. |
Dietary ethics
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:17:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:00:58 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:11:50 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:49:47 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>> > So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it? >>>>>> >>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it >>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their >>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW". >>>>>> >>>>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that >>>>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something. >>>>> >>>>>It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from >>>>>claiming that he's lying about what he thinks. >>>> >>>> It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard >>>>trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did >>>>believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do. >>>>Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the >>>>possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why >>>>is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie? >>>>How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him??? >>> >>>No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo: >>> >>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat >>> are more than just "nothing", because they >>> *will* be born unless something stops their >>> lives from happening. Since that is the case, >>> if something stops their lives from happening, >>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" >>> them of the life they otherwise would have had. >>> ****wit - 12/09/1999 >>> >>>You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would >>>experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing". >>> But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing." >> >> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more >>than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not >>be confused by it. You stupid Goober. > >No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than >just 'nothing'" They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not be confused by it. You stupid Goober. |
Dietary ethics
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:11:17 -0700 (PDT), 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. I've never lied about the fact that I don't have a belief...they/we could or they/we could not, and I consider both possibilities. There's no reason for me to lie about it. The only thing in question is what the Goober thinks he could gain by persuading people to believe I have a belief that I don't have. From my pov Goo is outstupiding himself for even trying. We have reason to believe that Goo has beliefe in a pre-existent state though. For one thing the Goober believes and wants everything to believe that something about our pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from our existence now, but he has never been able to say exactly WHAT or HOW something about our pre-existence could possibly do so. Let's challenge him now to be su Goo, try to explain what you think prevents existence from being a benefit either without referring to pre-existence, or if you do refer to it explain exactly how you think anything about it prevents us from benefitting NOW. (prediction: the Goober will fail the challenge so completely that he can't even make an attempt) Moving on, here's more evidence regarding Goob's beliefs about his supposed pre-existent state: "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes a pre-existent state". - Goo "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know, we don't know if that move" - Goo "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo "Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we can detect" - Goo "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of consideration" - Goo "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial" for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo ""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's problem." - Goo "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo "We are not and never were talking about benefits for existing entities" - Goo "Existing animals don't figure into it in any way." - Goo |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it >>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their >>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that >>>>>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from >>>>>> claiming that he's lying about what he thinks. >>>>> >>>>> It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard >>>>> trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did >>>>> believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do. >>>>> Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the >>>>> possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why >>>>> is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie? >>>>> How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him??? >>>> >>>> No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo: >>>> >>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat >>>> are more than just "nothing", because they >>>> *will* be born unless something stops their >>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case, >>>> if something stops their lives from happening, >>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" >>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had. >>>> ****wit - 12/09/1999 >>>> >>>> You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would >>>> experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing". >>>> But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing." >>> >>> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more >>> than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not >>> be confused by it. You stupid Goober. >> >> No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than >> just 'nothing'" > > They exist as a concept First of all, Goo, "concepts" of potential beings don't deserve any moral consideration. Second of all, Goo, you're lying: *you*, Goo, think of them as existing "in some sense" as individual potential "future farm animals." What you're saying, Goo, is that the potential for life of individual "future farm animals" deserves moral consideration - but it does not. If "vegans" were to succeed at stopping the breeding of livestock, Goo, no potential "future farm animals" would be "denied life", as you once put it. You can't "deny" anything to an entity that doesn't exist. What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. ****wit - 10/19/1999 If you keep an animal from being born which would have been born without your interference, you have denied life to it, whether it actually exists or not. ****wit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu I am talking about non-existing entities as if they will be alive some day. You are encouraging the idea that they should never be alive. ****wit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox In *ALL* of those, Goo, you are not talking about potential "future farm animals" as a concept - you are talking about them as some kind of entity that deserves moral consideration *today*, and you insist that that consideration necessarily must lead to wanting the animals to exist. But that's stupid. You can't *do* it, Goo - you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit. |
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison lied:
>>> >>>>>> "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. > > I've never lied about the fact that I don't have a belief You have lied about your beliefs, ****wit. You have denied having beliefs that you *clearly* have, based on dozens of *mutually consistent* things you have written that have revealed your beliefs. > [snip mangled, out-of-context fake "quotes"] None of that matters in showing what *your* irrational, ****witted beliefs are, Goo. |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
wrote: >Goo lied: >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. >> > >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means. > >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the >form of earthly based DNA life-forms. Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to ignore that one and if so why? |
Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics)
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:38:51 -0500, 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; in that >sense, it can be said to be "antireligion." However, when religious >believers speak of atheists being "antireligious" they usually mean that >the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists. Some do and some don't. Some atheists have faith that God does not exist, and some don't. Amusingly, those who appear to have it usually appear to be ashamed of their faith from my experiences with them. |
Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand what atheism means ( Dietary ethics))
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:14:04 -0500, 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, The United >States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every >opinion could be heard and considered. Then why can school kids no longer celebrate Christmas at Christmas, and Easter at Easter? .. . . >The American people have a right to know that in Atheism >there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion. All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any of it. |
Theists are destroying America ( Theists can't understand
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote: >>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. > > Then why can school kids no longer celebrate Christmas at Christmas, and > Easter at Easter? Rubbish, of course they can. The government (through the schools) just cannot endorse a specific religion. As per the US Constitution. > . . . >>The American people have a right to know that in Atheism >>there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion. > > All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility > that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things > developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science > teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any > of it. That's not faith. You assert there's a intelligent creator, you prove it. Until then we won't believe in it. Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iJwEAQECAAYFAlAkNJgACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7O+QQA0iAYI2QkLx EoYoygOdSKi0B8 fwVvu1Of0ZwjH6yU+3NbXeKc3AO92WK3TIZfJZrJ5z1ZNOxjF9 U7beze34NtZIfH HGQDVk8xr/KUTSNt/ryRH7898Ws+czMILBYcfNeGYb904zu1s2IV3IUdBEtOHLm7 9UZTAig3JuD7nHYWTcw= =hmGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Dietary ethics
dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it? >>>>>> >>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it >>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it. >>>>> >>>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can >>>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are >>>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to >>>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing >>>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very >>>>> incapable of even making an attempt. >>>> >>>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep >>>> you from being labelled a ****wit. >>> >>> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct. >> >> You proved that you're a moron. >> >>> >>>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to >>>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their >>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW". >>>>> >>>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend >>>>> on individual interpretation. >>>> >>>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as >>>> you do, is moronic. >>> >>> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!! >> >> I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are >> not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.." >> That's horseshit. >> >> >>>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to >>>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point >>>>> out that they don't? >>>> >>>> You pose it as a fact >>> >>> Because it's a fact. >> >> Yes, with no importance. > > It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination. Not ones with any sense. > It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to > those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into > consideration. It's unimportant to almost everyone, because almost everyone can see what meaningless bullshit it is. >>>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them, >>>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack". >>> >>> I post in favor of decent AW >> >> No you don't, > > That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a > stupidly blatant lie, if anyone? Everybody who is paying attention believes that truth, even your ass-chum Smartypants. > . . . >>> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people >>> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You >>> goobers really are pathetic. >> >> It just keeps getting worse for you > > LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what you > think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in > multiple lives. I've never said I think you believe in multiple lives. This reveals your and the Goober's ineptitude in a very clear > and amusing way, from my pov. > |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 9, 22:53, George Plimpton > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid > core beliefs again: > > > > >>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." > > >>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. > > >>>> ****wit thinks there are. > > >>> * * "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" > > Fake "quote". *The real quote is right below. > > > . . . > >> * * If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of > >> * * the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, > >> * * and whose welfare I can affect. > > > * * *Your first remark is no less stupid just > > It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn > animals currently being gestated by pregnant females. > In that quote you *are* talking about unborn animals being gestated by pregnant females. You are saying that you cannot see them and cannot affect their welfare. |
Dietary ethics
On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > > You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > No. > Why would that be? > >>>> * *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. > > > Wrong. > > No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. > You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > > wrote: > > >Goo lied: > > >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is > >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. > > >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that > >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has > >> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core > >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means. > > >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may > >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe > >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the > >form of earthly based DNA life-forms. > > * * Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those > same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every > other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to > ignore that one and if so why? Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent extraterrestrials if they existed? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/10/2012 1:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 9, 22:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >> ****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid >> core beliefs again: >> >> >> >>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." >> >>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. >> >>>>>> ****wit thinks there are. >> >>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" >> >> Fake "quote". The real quote is right below. >> >>> . . . >>>> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of >>>> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, >>>> and whose welfare I can affect. >> >>> Your first remark is no less stupid just >> >> It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn >> animals currently being gestated by pregnant females. >> > > In that quote you *are* talking about unborn animals being gestated by > pregnant females. Only to give some detail as to why ****wit's evasion/diversion in the form of equivocation is irrelevant. |
Dietary ethics
On 8/10/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> >>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. >> >> No. >> > > Why would that be? <chuckle> >>>>>> 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. >> >>> Wrong. >> >> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. >> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. > > What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? That question was just more time-wasting. |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
On 8/10/2012 4:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > >> wrote: >> >>> George Plimpton helped explain: >> >>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is >>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. >> >>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that >>>>> is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >>>> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means. >> >>> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may >>> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe >>> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the >>> form of earthly based DNA life-forms. >> >> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to >> ignore that one and if so why? > > Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent > extraterrestrials if they existed? The out-of-tune violin squeaks again. |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > > >>>> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > >>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > >> No. > > > Why would that be? > > <chuckle> > > >>>>>> * * 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. > > >>> Wrong. > > >> No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously.. > >> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. > > > What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? > > That question was just more time-wasting. Why? |
Dietary ethics
On 8/10/2012 7:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: >> On 8/10/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: >> >>>>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> >>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. >> >>>> No. >> >>> Why would that be? >> >> <chuckle> >> >>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>> Wrong. >> >>>> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. >>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. >> >>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? >> >> That question was just more time-wasting. > > Why? So is that one. |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 1:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On aug. 9, 22:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> ****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid > >> core beliefs again: > > >>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." > > >>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. > > >>>>>> ****wit thinks there are. > > >>>>> * * *"If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" > > >> Fake "quote". *The real quote is right below. > > >>> . . . > >>>> * * *If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of > >>>> * * *the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, > >>>> * * *and whose welfare I can affect. > > >>> * * * Your first remark is no less stupid just > > >> It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn > >> animals currently being gestated by pregnant females. > > > In that quote you *are* talking about unborn animals being gestated by > > pregnant females. > > Only to give some detail as to why ****wit's evasion/diversion in the > form of equivocation is irrelevant. When did he equivocate again? |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 7:50 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> On 8/10/2012 1:39 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > > >>>>>> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > >>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > >>>> No. > > >>> Why would that be? > > >> <chuckle> > > >>>>>>>> * * *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. > > >>>>> Wrong. > > >>>> No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. > >>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. > > >>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? > > >> That question was just more time-wasting. > > > Why? > > So is that one. If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, then why is it not a waste of time for you to make the remark in the first place? |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
On 10 Aug., 16:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 4:11 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > > >> wrote: > > >>> George Plimpton helped explain: > > >>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is > >>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. > > >>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that > >>>>> is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has > >>>> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core > >>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.. > > >>> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may > >>> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe > >>> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the > >>> form of earthly based DNA life-forms. > > >> * * *Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those > >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every > >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to > >> ignore that one and if so why? > > > Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent > > extraterrestrials if they existed? > > The out-of-tune violin squeaks again. Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me. |
Dietary ethics
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: >> >>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> >>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. >> >>>>>> No. >> >>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>> <chuckle> >> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>> Wrong. >> >>>>>> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. >>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. >> >>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? >> >>>> That question was just more time-wasting. >> >>> Why? >> >> So is that one. > > If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, It is. It's a waste of time for two reasons. First, you already know what I mean. Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything more about what I mean. You're just bored and you've already had your daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time posing stupid questions. It really does suck to be you. |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 17:32, George Plimpton > wrote:
> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > > >>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > >>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > >>>>>> No. > > >>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>> <chuckle> > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * 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. > > >>>>>>> Wrong. > > >>>>>> No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. > >>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. > > >>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? > > >>>> That question was just more time-wasting. > > >>> Why? > > >> So is that one. > > > If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, > > It is. *It's a waste of time for two reasons. *First, you already know > what I mean. *Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything > more about what I mean. *You're just bored and you've already had your > daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time > posing stupid questions. > > It really does suck to be you. You are wrong on both counts. |
Dietary ethics
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 16:42, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On aug. 9, 22:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> ****wit David Harrison unsuccessfully tried to run away from his stupid >>>> core beliefs again: >> >>>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..." >> >>>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron. >> >>>>>>>> ****wit thinks there are. >> >>>>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" >> >>>> Fake "quote". The real quote is right below. >> >>>>> . . . >>>>>> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of >>>>>> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see, >>>>>> and whose welfare I can affect. >> >>>>> Your first remark is no less stupid just >> >>>> It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn >>>> animals currently being gestated by pregnant females. >> >>> In that quote you *are* talking about unborn animals being gestated by >>> pregnant females. >> >> Only to give some detail as to why ****wit's evasion/diversion in the >> form of equivocation is irrelevant. > > When did he equivocate again? When he tried to pretend we were talking about animal fetuses when I used the expression "unborn animals". ****wit is the one who first started saying "unborn animals" to refer to unconceived "future farm animals." At some point, when I showed that his beliefs concerning "future farm animals" were irrational and absurd, and I used the expression "unborn animals" that *he* introduced, he thought it would be cute to start equivocating. The discussion has always been about "future farm animals" that don't exist today in any way. ****wit isn't criticizing "vegans" for wanting to abort animal fetuses - he's criticizing them for not wanting conception of livestock animals to occur at all. |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 16:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote: >>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> George Plimpton helped explain: >> >>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is >>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. >> >>>>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that >>>>>>> is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >>>>>> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means. >> >>>>> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may >>>>> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe >>>>> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the >>>>> form of earthly based DNA life-forms. >> >>>> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those >>>> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every >>>> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to >>>> ignore that one and if so why? >> >>> Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent >>> extraterrestrials if they existed? >> >> The out-of-tune violin squeaks again. > > Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me. Only if you were dealing with someone who is taking a serious approach to the possibility life elsewhere in the universe and isn't ****ing around with the terms. It is a certainty that you and ****wit are not using the same terms to mean the same things. That's part of his schtick. |
Dietary ethics
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 17:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> >>>>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. >> >>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>> <chuckle> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>> Wrong. >> >>>>>>>> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. >>>>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. >> >>>>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? >> >>>>>> That question was just more time-wasting. >> >>>>> Why? >> >>>> So is that one. >> >>> If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, >> >> It is. It's a waste of time for two reasons. First, you already know >> what I mean. Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything >> more about what I mean. You're just bored and you've already had your >> daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time >> posing stupid questions. >> >> It really does suck to be you. > > You are wrong on both counts. I'm right on all *three* counts, Your Wobbliness. You forgot the third one: that it sucks to be you. |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
On 10 Aug., 17:39, George Plimpton > wrote:
> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug., 16:49, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>> On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> George Plimpton helped explain: > > >>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is > >>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. > > >>>>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that > >>>>>>> is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has > >>>>>> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core > >>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means. > > >>>>> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may > >>>>> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe > >>>>> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the > >>>>> form of earthly based DNA life-forms. > > >>>> * * * Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those > >>>> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every > >>>> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to > >>>> ignore that one and if so why? > > >>> Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent > >>> extraterrestrials if they existed? > > >> The out-of-tune violin squeaks again. > > > Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me. > > Only if you were dealing with someone who is taking a serious approach > to the possibility life elsewhere in the universe and isn't ****ing > around with the terms. *It is a certainty that you and ****wit are not > using the same terms to mean the same things. *That's part of his schtick. What's an example of a term that we're using differently to one another? |
There's only one designer, humans! ( Dietary ethics)
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 17:39, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Aug., 16:49, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>> On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon > >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> George Plimpton helped explain: >> >>>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is >>>>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived. >> >>>>>>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that >>>>>>>>> is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has >>>>>>>> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core >>>>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means. >> >>>>>>> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may >>>>>>> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe >>>>>>> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the >>>>>>> form of earthly based DNA life-forms. >> >>>>>> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those >>>>>> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every >>>>>> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to >>>>>> ignore that one and if so why? >> >>>>> Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent >>>>> extraterrestrials if they existed? >> >>>> The out-of-tune violin squeaks again. >> >>> Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me. >> >> Only if you were dealing with someone who is taking a serious approach >> to the possibility life elsewhere in the universe and isn't ****ing >> around with the terms. It is a certainty that you and ****wit are not >> using the same terms to mean the same things. That's part of his schtick. > > What's an example of a term that we're using differently to one > another? "Probability". |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 17:41, George Plimpton > wrote:
> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug., 17:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > >>>>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > >>>>>>>> No. > > >>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>> <chuckle> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *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. > > >>>>>>>>> Wrong. > > >>>>>>>> No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. > >>>>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. |
Dietary ethics
Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time:
> On 10 Aug., 17:41, George Plimpton > wrote: >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Aug., 17:32, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: >>>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: >> >>>>>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. You are an out-of-tune violin. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. >> >>>>>>>>>> No. >> >>>>>>>>> Why would that be? >> >>>>>>>> <chuckle> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, I'm right. You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. >>>>>>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. >> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? >> >>>>>>>> That question was just more time-wasting. >> >>>>>>> Why? >> >>>>>> So is that one. >> >>>>> If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, >> >>>> It is. It's a waste of time for two reasons. First, you already know >>>> what I mean. Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything >>>> more about what I mean. You're just bored and you've already had your >>>> daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time >>>> posing stupid questions. >> >>>> It really does suck to be you. >> >>> You are wrong on both counts. >> >> I'm right on all *three* counts, Your Wobbliness. You forgot the third >> one: that it sucks to be you. > > I can think of quite a few advantages to being me. I can't think of one. |
Dietary ethics
On 10 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton > wrote:
> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Aug., 17:41, George Plimpton > wrote: > >> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>> On 10 Aug., 17:32, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>>>> On 10 Aug., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote: > >>>>>>>> Right on cue, low-time-value Rupert came back and wasted some more time: > > >>>>>>>>> On aug. 9, 21:03, George Plimpton > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You've been wasting time. *You are an out-of-tune violin. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You have been wasting time at least as much as I have. > > >>>>>>>>>> No. > > >>>>>>>>> Why would that be? > > >>>>>>>> <chuckle> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * 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. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, I'm right. *You are taking ****wit's evasive diversion seriously. > >>>>>>>>>> You're being played like a violin - an out-of-tune, wobbly violin. > > >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "taking it seriously"? > > >>>>>>>> That question was just more time-wasting. > > >>>>>>> Why? > > >>>>>> So is that one. > > >>>>> If it's a waste of time to ask you what you mean, > > >>>> It is. *It's a waste of time for two reasons. *First, you already know > >>>> what I mean. *Second, you aren't really interested in knowing anything > >>>> more about what I mean. *You're just bored and you've already had your > >>>> daily wank and you don't know what else to do, so you **** away time > >>>> posing stupid questions. > > >>>> It really does suck to be you. > > >>> You are wrong on both counts. > > >> I'm right on all *three* counts, Your Wobbliness. *You forgot the third > >> one: *that it sucks to be you. > > > I can think of quite a few advantages to being me. > > I can't think of one. Well, your insight about the matter is pretty limited. Anyway, do you not think it's an advantage to be good at mathematics? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter