Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #441 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>
> Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.


Failing to respond to the inconsistencies of your position, while it may
be commonly held, makes you look bad. A choice, Dutch.

As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me do
it", I think this approach might be best.
  #442 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>
> Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.


Failing to respond to the inconsistencies of your position, while it may
be commonly held, makes you look bad. A choice, Dutch.

As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me do
it", I think this approach might be best.
  #443 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > passing responsibility for their own actions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?
> >> >
> >> > You do, Dutch.
> >>
> >> Bad answer.
> >>
> >> > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your
> >> > theoretical constructs.
> >>
> >> Nope, wrong again.
> >>
> >> > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my
> >> > demand.
> >>
> >> Nope, it's you.
> >>
> >> > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions.
> >>
> >> How could anyone else?

> >
> > So how could I be responsible for the farmers actions?

>
> You're not, you're responsibile for your choice to support him by doing
> business with him.


I accept that you want me to be responsible, but I'm not. Of course, the
childlike position of "i made him do it" doesn't hold much water for me.
  #444 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being juvenile
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > passing responsibility for their own actions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?
> >> >
> >> > You do, Dutch.
> >>
> >> Bad answer.
> >>
> >> > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your
> >> > theoretical constructs.
> >>
> >> Nope, wrong again.
> >>
> >> > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my
> >> > demand.
> >>
> >> Nope, it's you.
> >>
> >> > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions.
> >>
> >> How could anyone else?

> >
> > So how could I be responsible for the farmers actions?

>
> You're not, you're responsibile for your choice to support him by doing
> business with him.


I accept that you want me to be responsible, but I'm not. Of course, the
childlike position of "i made him do it" doesn't hold much water for me.
  #445 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a

> > bullet
> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,

> > shooting,
> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to

> > a
> >> certain degree.
> >>
> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.

> >
> > That's extremely lame a "justification".
> >
> > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with
> > meat production aren't particularly psychologically
> > impaired in the way you are presenting.
> >
> > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into.
> > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming
> > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n.
> >
> > You should actually talk to some of them before you
> > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos.
> >
> > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not
> > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral,
> > it's just that I can't do it personally?"
> >
> > There are people who are that honest, you know.
> > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then
> > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't
> > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with
> > highly irrational arguments. They just say they
> > tried and couldn't do it.
> >
> > A little bit of honesty can go very far.

>
> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.


Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.

> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold the
> convictions you express.



  #446 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a

> > bullet
> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,

> > shooting,
> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to

> > a
> >> certain degree.
> >>
> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.

> >
> > That's extremely lame a "justification".
> >
> > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with
> > meat production aren't particularly psychologically
> > impaired in the way you are presenting.
> >
> > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into.
> > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming
> > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n.
> >
> > You should actually talk to some of them before you
> > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos.
> >
> > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not
> > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral,
> > it's just that I can't do it personally?"
> >
> > There are people who are that honest, you know.
> > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then
> > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't
> > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with
> > highly irrational arguments. They just say they
> > tried and couldn't do it.
> >
> > A little bit of honesty can go very far.

>
> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.


Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.

> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold the
> convictions you express.

  #447 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >> Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often

> > be
> >> misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that

> > aggression
> >> directed to other animals rather than humans.
> >>
> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a

> > bullet
> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,

> > shooting,
> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to

> > a
> >> certain degree.
> >>
> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.

> >
> > I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply
> > to hunters,

>
> It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's impact
> on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any sector
> of society.


Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
willful attempt to kill it.

> > otherwise normal people get jobs in the
> > meat production industry or are born in a farming household.
> > It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance.
> > In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to
> > become veg*ns!

>
> I agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.


It takes a disturbed individual to inflict pain and suffering on another
animal especially with the knowledge that animals can and do feel pain
-- and then call it hunting.
  #448 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >> Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often

> > be
> >> misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that

> > aggression
> >> directed to other animals rather than humans.
> >>
> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a

> > bullet
> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,

> > shooting,
> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to

> > a
> >> certain degree.
> >>
> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.

> >
> > I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply
> > to hunters,

>
> It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's impact
> on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any sector
> of society.


Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
willful attempt to kill it.

> > otherwise normal people get jobs in the
> > meat production industry or are born in a farming household.
> > It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance.
> > In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to
> > become veg*ns!

>
> I agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.


It takes a disturbed individual to inflict pain and suffering on another
animal especially with the knowledge that animals can and do feel pain
-- and then call it hunting.
  #449 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>
> Most of what you write is irrational.


I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
outside of my control.

> > I actually admire
> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>
> What don't they do?

  #450 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>
> Most of what you write is irrational.


I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
outside of my control.

> > I actually admire
> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>
> What don't they do?



  #451 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>>
>> Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.

>
> Failing to respond to the inconsistencies of your position


There are none.

, while it may
> be commonly held, makes you look bad. A choice, Dutch.


Your whole position makes you look like a troll Ronny,

> As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me do
> it", I think this approach might be best.


You don't think.


  #452 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>>
>> Nothing you say warrants a response, you're a troll.

>
> Failing to respond to the inconsistencies of your position


There are none.

, while it may
> be commonly held, makes you look bad. A choice, Dutch.


Your whole position makes you look like a troll Ronny,

> As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me do
> it", I think this approach might be best.


You don't think.


  #453 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > If people need to blame me for their actions, well, I'm a big boy
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > can handle that. The reality is, of course, that anyone who kills
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > relies on the "they made me do it argument" is just being
>> >> >> > juvenile
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > passing responsibility for their own actions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who makes you place a demand for meat on the meat market?
>> >> >
>> >> > You do, Dutch.
>> >>
>> >> Bad answer.
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not responsible for my own actions under your
>> >> > theoretical constructs.
>> >>
>> >> Nope, wrong again.
>> >>
>> >> > Someone else _must_ be responsible for my
>> >> > demand.
>> >>
>> >> Nope, it's you.
>> >>
>> >> > How could I possibly be responsible for my own actions.
>> >>
>> >> How could anyone else?
>> >
>> > So how could I be responsible for the farmers actions?

>>
>> You're not, you're responsibile for your choice to support him by doing
>> business with him.

>
> I accept that you want me to be responsible, but I'm not. Of course, the
> childlike position of "i made him do it" doesn't hold much water for me.


Who is forcing you to do business with animal-killing farmers Ronny? Who is
making you do it? Why are you attempting to avoid responsibility for your
personal choices?


  #454 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> > Ron wrote:
>> >
>> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a
>> > bullet
>> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,
>> > shooting,
>> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to
>> > a
>> >> certain degree.
>> >>
>> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.
>> >
>> > That's extremely lame a "justification".
>> >
>> > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with
>> > meat production aren't particularly psychologically
>> > impaired in the way you are presenting.
>> >
>> > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into.
>> > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming
>> > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n.
>> >
>> > You should actually talk to some of them before you
>> > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos.
>> >
>> > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not
>> > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral,
>> > it's just that I can't do it personally?"
>> >
>> > There are people who are that honest, you know.
>> > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then
>> > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't
>> > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with
>> > highly irrational arguments. They just say they
>> > tried and couldn't do it.
>> >
>> > A little bit of honesty can go very far.

>>
>> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.

>
> Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.


OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.


>> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold
>> the
>> convictions you express.



  #455 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> > Ron wrote:
>> >
>> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a
>> > bullet
>> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,
>> > shooting,
>> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to
>> > a
>> >> certain degree.
>> >>
>> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.
>> >
>> > That's extremely lame a "justification".
>> >
>> > Except for hunters-by-choice, people associated with
>> > meat production aren't particularly psychologically
>> > impaired in the way you are presenting.
>> >
>> > It's a job that some of them happen to fall into.
>> > In fact, some people associated with meat-farming
>> > get very disturbed, and do end up veg*n.
>> >
>> > You should actually talk to some of them before you
>> > put them all down like that, and present them as psychos.
>> >
>> > Why this need for "justifications" anyway? Why not
>> > a more honest "I think vegetarianism is moral,
>> > it's just that I can't do it personally?"
>> >
>> > There are people who are that honest, you know.
>> > They gave vegetarianism/veganism a try, and then
>> > decided they just couldn't do it. But they don't
>> > go around badmouthing veg*ns and coming up with
>> > highly irrational arguments. They just say they
>> > tried and couldn't do it.
>> >
>> > A little bit of honesty can go very far.

>>
>> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's saying.

>
> Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.


OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.


>> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold
>> the
>> convictions you express.





  #456 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>> > Ron wrote:
>> >
>> >> Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often
>> > be
>> >> misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that
>> > aggression
>> >> directed to other animals rather than humans.
>> >>
>> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a
>> > bullet
>> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,
>> > shooting,
>> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to
>> > a
>> >> certain degree.
>> >>
>> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply
>> > to hunters,

>>
>> It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's
>> impact
>> on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any
>> sector
>> of society.

>
> Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
> of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
> willful attempt to kill it.


Brilliant conclusion.

>
>> > otherwise normal people get jobs in the
>> > meat production industry or are born in a farming household.
>> > It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance.
>> > In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to
>> > become veg*ns!

>>
>> I agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.

>
> It takes a disturbed individual to inflict pain and suffering on another
> animal especially with the knowledge that animals can and do feel pain
> -- and then call it hunting.


Troll-boy strikes again.


  #457 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>> > Ron wrote:
>> >
>> >> Killers need a place to vent their aggression. Aggression can often
>> > be
>> >> misdirected. It is safer for the human community to have that
>> > aggression
>> >> directed to other animals rather than humans.
>> >>
>> >> Any one who can 'dissociate' themselves from the act of putting a
>> > bullet
>> >> in the head of an animal, or electrocuting them, or stabbing,
>> > shooting,
>> >> etc. without the presence of emotions is psychologically impaired to
>> > a
>> >> certain degree.
>> >>
>> >> Keep em busy and keep em away from me.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's valid -- while this may apply
>> > to hunters,

>>
>> It doesn't apply to hunters. Hunters in many cases are people who's
>> impact
>> on the enrironment and animals in general is one of the lowest of any
>> sector
>> of society.

>
> Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
> of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
> willful attempt to kill it.


Brilliant conclusion.

>
>> > otherwise normal people get jobs in the
>> > meat production industry or are born in a farming household.
>> > It's just a means of livelihood, not a psychological imbalance.
>> > In fact, some of them do get disturbed enough to
>> > become veg*ns!

>>
>> I agree, it takes a disturbed individual to become a vegan.

>
> It takes a disturbed individual to inflict pain and suffering on another
> animal especially with the knowledge that animals can and do feel pain
> -- and then call it hunting.


Troll-boy strikes again.


  #458 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>> >
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>> ====================
>> What would that be, pansy-boy?

>
> Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
> reasoning.

==================
And yet again we see nothing to back up any claims you make. Come on now,
pansy-boy, there must be something you can respond to. Afterall, you made a
claim, or was it just another of your empty rhetorical idiocys?


  #459 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>> >
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>> ====================
>> What would that be, pansy-boy?

>
> Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
> reasoning.

==================
And yet again we see nothing to back up any claims you make. Come on now,
pansy-boy, there must be something you can respond to. Afterall, you made a
claim, or was it just another of your empty rhetorical idiocys?


  #460 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>>
>> Most of what you write is irrational.

>
> I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
> paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
> outside of my control.
>
>> > I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>>
>> What don't they do?

==================
Continued evasion of your delusional claims noted...





  #461 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>>
>> Most of what you write is irrational.

>
> I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
> paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
> outside of my control.
>
>> > I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>>
>> What don't they do?

==================
Continued evasion of your delusional claims noted...



  #462 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...

snippage...


> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.

================
I contend he is just that stupid.



>
>
>>> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold
>>> the
>>> convictions you express.

>
>



  #463 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...

snippage...


> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.

================
I contend he is just that stupid.



>
>
>>> I may disagree with you, but at least I believe that you actually hold
>>> the
>>> convictions you express.

>
>



  #464 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message



snippage...



>>
>> Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
>> of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
>> willful attempt to kill it.

>
> Brilliant conclusion.

================
He has quite the ability at stupid statements, eh?



snippage...


  #465 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message



snippage...



>>
>> Hunting is one of those nice feel good words that avoid from the reality
>> of the situation. Picking up a rifle and shooting at animals is a
>> willful attempt to kill it.

>
> Brilliant conclusion.

================
He has quite the ability at stupid statements, eh?



snippage...




  #466 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:



snippage...


>> >
>> > CHOOSE TO. No one has to do anything unless they've chosen to do it.

>> =====================
>> Very good, little boy. Now, if you choose to do one thing, buying cheap,
>> clean, conveninet veggies that you know causes massive animal death and
>> suffering, while claiming to to be doing all you can to reduce
>> unnecessary
>> death and suffering to animals, you are at the least, hypocritical, and
>> most
>> likely ignorant to boot. Choice is the whole point here. Vegans choose
>> based only on the simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
>> Despite
>> the fact that they claim that animals are the primary goal.

>
> I'm not responsible for what others do. I don't control what they do.

====================
Again, very good. However, you are responsible for the chopices you make.
Making choices that you know causes the actions that you claim to want to
avoid is hypocrisy, or in your case, justplain stupidity.


>
> The second flaw in your reasoning, once again, is this silly notion that
> one must do all to conform to a logical argument.

========================
Logic is really tough for you, isn't it pansy-boy?

We covered this with
> the example of sodomizing children. Since you and I have time to
> exchange witticisms then, we are not doing all that is possible to
> protect children, ergo we must think it okay for children to be
> sodomized. That is the product of your reasoning, Rick.

======================
Nope. You failed, yet again. But that's not surprising, is it fool? I;m
not currently engaging in the action and claiming it to be bad. Vegans
are. That's where the logic fails you fool.


>
>> The
>> > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish.

>> ======================
>> And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites.

>
> Aw, another person who is going to google us to death. Cut and paste is
> a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

====================
LOL You have neither, fool.


I offered to examine
> statistics, each time being declined.

========================
I thought so. You have nothing to back up your ignorant delusions. thanks
for the admission, queer-boy.


>
>> The grower
>> > CHOOSES to kill animals such as birds, frogs, etc.

>> =====================
>> At the behest of the consumer fool. In this case, the vegan loon who
>> has
>> already made it a point of making grandious claims of not killing
>> animals.
>> The vegan *could* make choices that don't require the death and suffering
>> of
>> animals, but the ones here on usenet do not make those choices,. The
>> vegan *could* choose a grower that chooses not to cause death and
>> suffering,
>> or become his own grower, but agaibn, the usenet vegan doesn't. He's too
>> into looking for scapegoats to ease the guilty conscience they have.
>> Afterall, as long as they can focus all their energy on what they think
>> others are doing, they can conveninetly ignore their own bloody
>> footprints.

>
> Behest? You do make me laugh. They are my minions after all. I control
> all the food growers with a single thought. I want and they must
> respond. They have no choice. They must kill. I control their arms and
> their equipment. I AM ALL POWERFUL. I think of meat or throw down a few
> dollars and suddenly growers the world over feel compelled to respond to
> my needs. They are my pawns in this delicious game of control that I
> exert over everyone.

==================
lack of intelligent response, noted.



>
>> >> Now would you like to
>> >> > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue
>> >> > to
>> >> > make generalizations out of desperation.
>> >> ==================
>> >> LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy.

>
> Ah, the true mark of a coward. Will you threaten me with violence next?

=======================
I see your comprehension problem is still in effect, eh fool?




snippage...



  #467 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
>> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here,
>> pansy-boy,
>> but you have already lost, again.

>
> Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

======================
No, there are not. You have choices. You make the one that causes death.
Your choice led to it, you paid for it. You are culpable.


>
> I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
> use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
> any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
> outcomes of his actions.

================
LOL Idiocy 101? Is that what passes as logic in your world?

>
> What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
> indicative of flawed reasoning.

=================
You should know all about flawed reasoning, fool. It's all you have
presented.


  #468 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
>> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here,
>> pansy-boy,
>> but you have already lost, again.

>
> Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

======================
No, there are not. You have choices. You make the one that causes death.
Your choice led to it, you paid for it. You are culpable.


>
> I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
> use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
> any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
> outcomes of his actions.

================
LOL Idiocy 101? Is that what passes as logic in your world?

>
> What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
> indicative of flawed reasoning.

=================
You should know all about flawed reasoning, fool. It's all you have
presented.


  #469 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
>> animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to
>> make
>> other choices, then yes.

>
> I am not responsible for the outcome of your choices.

===========================
Very good fool. No one ever claimed that. You, however are responsible
for *your* choices.


When a producer of
> food kills to accomplish there goals they are responsible for the
> actions not each and every possible outcome.
>
> I give one animal an antibiotic and it lives. I give an animal and
> anitbiotic and it dies. I have performed the same ACT in both cases. The
> outcomes are independent of my actions. My actions are coincidental and
> not causal.

=====================
Tap, tap, tap.. Keep telling yourself that pansy-boy....



  #470 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> When he knowingly makes choices that result in the death and suffering of
>> animals, despite the fact that he claims to care and make no effort to
>> make
>> other choices, then yes.

>
> I am not responsible for the outcome of your choices.

===========================
Very good fool. No one ever claimed that. You, however are responsible
for *your* choices.


When a producer of
> food kills to accomplish there goals they are responsible for the
> actions not each and every possible outcome.
>
> I give one animal an antibiotic and it lives. I give an animal and
> anitbiotic and it dies. I have performed the same ACT in both cases. The
> outcomes are independent of my actions. My actions are coincidental and
> not causal.

=====================
Tap, tap, tap.. Keep telling yourself that pansy-boy....





  #471 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire
> >> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.
> >> ====================
> >> What would that be, pansy-boy?

> >
> > Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
> > reasoning.

> ==================
> And yet again we see nothing to back up any claims you make. Come on now,
> pansy-boy, there must be something you can respond to. Afterall, you made a
> claim, or was it just another of your empty rhetorical idiocys?


It was there, but I'll repeat it. The notion that you, dutch, usual and
the law perpetuate is the false notion that is common of children. The
false sense of responsibility for the action of others. The notion that
"you made me do it" or "I made you do it" assumes responsibility for the
actions of another. This is patently false.
  #472 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational. I actually admire
> >> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.
> >> ====================
> >> What would that be, pansy-boy?

> >
> > Once again, we see the bait for yet another round of 2 flawed pieces of
> > reasoning.

> ==================
> And yet again we see nothing to back up any claims you make. Come on now,
> pansy-boy, there must be something you can respond to. Afterall, you made a
> claim, or was it just another of your empty rhetorical idiocys?


It was there, but I'll repeat it. The notion that you, dutch, usual and
the law perpetuate is the false notion that is common of children. The
false sense of responsibility for the action of others. The notion that
"you made me do it" or "I made you do it" assumes responsibility for the
actions of another. This is patently false.
  #473 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>>
>> Most of what you write is irrational.

>
> I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
> paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
> outside of my control.


More irrational statements don't offset earlier ones.

>
>> > I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>>
>> What don't they do?


What? If people aren't responsible for the animals farmers kill in the first
place then how is abstaining from eating something admirable? You have
cornered yourself Ron. Have you been trolling long?


  #474 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > There is a tendency to call many things irrational.

>>
>> Most of what you write is irrational.

>
> I'm not responsible for what I write, you made me do it. Someone is
> paying me to write, I can't be held accountable for what I type. It is
> outside of my control.


More irrational statements don't offset earlier ones.

>
>> > I actually admire
>> > vegans and what they do, or more correctly, what they don't do.

>>
>> What don't they do?


What? If people aren't responsible for the animals farmers kill in the first
place then how is abstaining from eating something admirable? You have
cornered yourself Ron. Have you been trolling long?


  #475 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> It was there, but I'll repeat it. The notion that you, dutch, usual and
> the law perpetuate is the false notion that is common of children. The
> false sense of responsibility for the action of others. The notion that
> "you made me do it" or "I made you do it" assumes responsibility for the
> actions of another. This is patently false.


You're right it's false, but we're arguing the opposite. You are responsible
for *your* choice to patronize animal-murdering slaughterhouses. You have
already acknowledged this by announcing that you admire vegans for *not*
doing so.

You're done Ron, it's over.




  #476 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote

> It was there, but I'll repeat it. The notion that you, dutch, usual and
> the law perpetuate is the false notion that is common of children. The
> false sense of responsibility for the action of others. The notion that
> "you made me do it" or "I made you do it" assumes responsibility for the
> actions of another. This is patently false.


You're right it's false, but we're arguing the opposite. You are responsible
for *your* choice to patronize animal-murdering slaughterhouses. You have
already acknowledged this by announcing that you admire vegans for *not*
doing so.

You're done Ron, it's over.


  #477 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:

>
>
> snippage...
>
>
> >> >
> >> > CHOOSE TO. No one has to do anything unless they've chosen to do it.
> >> =====================
> >> Very good, little boy. Now, if you choose to do one thing, buying cheap,
> >> clean, conveninet veggies that you know causes massive animal death and
> >> suffering, while claiming to to be doing all you can to reduce
> >> unnecessary
> >> death and suffering to animals, you are at the least, hypocritical, and
> >> most
> >> likely ignorant to boot. Choice is the whole point here. Vegans choose
> >> based only on the simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
> >> Despite
> >> the fact that they claim that animals are the primary goal.

> >
> > I'm not responsible for what others do. I don't control what they do.

> ====================
> Again, very good. However, you are responsible for the chopices you make.
> Making choices that you know causes the actions that you claim to want to
> avoid is hypocrisy, or in your case, justplain stupidity.


The key to the false sense of responsibility is the use of the word
"cause". I don't cause anyone to do anything. They cause themselves to
do it. I cause myself to type this response. I could attribute
responsibility for my current action of typing to you, however and
ultimately, it is my choice to respond. It is a nicer world though if I
don't have to accept responsibility for my choice to type and that I can
blame you for my actions. Likewise, it is a nicer world if I can blame
myself for your actions and experience a sense of power and control in
the world.

> > The second flaw in your reasoning, once again, is this silly notion that
> > one must do all to conform to a logical argument.

> ========================
> Logic is really tough for you, isn't it pansy-boy?


Logic indeed. Now where did you learn that I must do all to avoid
anything or to stop something that I perceive as "wrong". At its face,
this is impractical and illogical. If I think that A, B and C are wrong,
it is impossible for me to work against A, B, and C at the same time. If
I think murder, mugging and rape are all wrong then it is an
impossibility for me to do all, or to stop each of these three things. A
human is limited by the physical reality of the universe. Logic does not
conform to the physical requirements of the physical world. I cannot
physically be stopping a murder in one location, stopping mugging on a
downtown street and preventing the rape of another at another location.

> We covered this with
> > the example of sodomizing children. Since you and I have time to
> > exchange witticisms then, we are not doing all that is possible to
> > protect children, ergo we must think it okay for children to be
> > sodomized. That is the product of your reasoning, Rick.

> ======================
> Nope. You failed, yet again. But that's not surprising, is it fool? I;m
> not currently engaging in the action and claiming it to be bad. Vegans
> are. That's where the logic fails you fool.


I have established your hypocrisy though. You've stated the vegan must
act in all ways against what they believe is wrong. That you have a few
minutes to communicate with means that you must not think sodomizing
children is wrong. Or, have I misunderstood and you think sodomizing
children is right and therefore your "moral obligation" is non-existent.

Please answer, Rick. Is sodomizing children wrong? And have you done
everything conceivable to stop it?

> >> The
> >> > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish.
> >> ======================
> >> And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites.

> >
> > Aw, another person who is going to google us to death. Cut and paste is
> > a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

> ====================
> LOL You have neither, fool.


I feel like I'm in a re-run of the defunct A-Team.

> I offered to examine
> > statistics, each time being declined.

> ========================
> I thought so. You have nothing to back up your ignorant delusions. thanks
> for the admission, queer-boy.


Well, thank you for the free advertising.

> >> The grower
> >> > CHOOSES to kill animals such as birds, frogs, etc.
> >> =====================
> >> At the behest of the consumer fool. In this case, the vegan loon who
> >> has
> >> already made it a point of making grandious claims of not killing
> >> animals.
> >> The vegan *could* make choices that don't require the death and suffering
> >> of
> >> animals, but the ones here on usenet do not make those choices,. The
> >> vegan *could* choose a grower that chooses not to cause death and
> >> suffering,
> >> or become his own grower, but agaibn, the usenet vegan doesn't. He's too
> >> into looking for scapegoats to ease the guilty conscience they have.
> >> Afterall, as long as they can focus all their energy on what they think
> >> others are doing, they can conveninetly ignore their own bloody
> >> footprints.

> >
> > Behest? You do make me laugh. They are my minions after all. I control
> > all the food growers with a single thought. I want and they must
> > respond. They have no choice. They must kill. I control their arms and
> > their equipment. I AM ALL POWERFUL. I think of meat or throw down a few
> > dollars and suddenly growers the world over feel compelled to respond to
> > my needs. They are my pawns in this delicious game of control that I
> > exert over everyone.

> ==================
> lack of intelligent response, noted.


I made them do it. I made them kill. I made them kill collaterally. It's
all my doing. They are just my pawns. I am the MAN.

> >> >> Now would you like to
> >> >> > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > make generalizations out of desperation.
> >> >> ==================
> >> >> LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy.

> >
> > Ah, the true mark of a coward. Will you threaten me with violence next?

> =======================
> I see your comprehension problem is still in effect, eh fool?


Oh, just kiss me. These attempts at foreplay are tiresome.
  #478 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:

>
>
> snippage...
>
>
> >> >
> >> > CHOOSE TO. No one has to do anything unless they've chosen to do it.
> >> =====================
> >> Very good, little boy. Now, if you choose to do one thing, buying cheap,
> >> clean, conveninet veggies that you know causes massive animal death and
> >> suffering, while claiming to to be doing all you can to reduce
> >> unnecessary
> >> death and suffering to animals, you are at the least, hypocritical, and
> >> most
> >> likely ignorant to boot. Choice is the whole point here. Vegans choose
> >> based only on the simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
> >> Despite
> >> the fact that they claim that animals are the primary goal.

> >
> > I'm not responsible for what others do. I don't control what they do.

> ====================
> Again, very good. However, you are responsible for the chopices you make.
> Making choices that you know causes the actions that you claim to want to
> avoid is hypocrisy, or in your case, justplain stupidity.


The key to the false sense of responsibility is the use of the word
"cause". I don't cause anyone to do anything. They cause themselves to
do it. I cause myself to type this response. I could attribute
responsibility for my current action of typing to you, however and
ultimately, it is my choice to respond. It is a nicer world though if I
don't have to accept responsibility for my choice to type and that I can
blame you for my actions. Likewise, it is a nicer world if I can blame
myself for your actions and experience a sense of power and control in
the world.

> > The second flaw in your reasoning, once again, is this silly notion that
> > one must do all to conform to a logical argument.

> ========================
> Logic is really tough for you, isn't it pansy-boy?


Logic indeed. Now where did you learn that I must do all to avoid
anything or to stop something that I perceive as "wrong". At its face,
this is impractical and illogical. If I think that A, B and C are wrong,
it is impossible for me to work against A, B, and C at the same time. If
I think murder, mugging and rape are all wrong then it is an
impossibility for me to do all, or to stop each of these three things. A
human is limited by the physical reality of the universe. Logic does not
conform to the physical requirements of the physical world. I cannot
physically be stopping a murder in one location, stopping mugging on a
downtown street and preventing the rape of another at another location.

> We covered this with
> > the example of sodomizing children. Since you and I have time to
> > exchange witticisms then, we are not doing all that is possible to
> > protect children, ergo we must think it okay for children to be
> > sodomized. That is the product of your reasoning, Rick.

> ======================
> Nope. You failed, yet again. But that's not surprising, is it fool? I;m
> not currently engaging in the action and claiming it to be bad. Vegans
> are. That's where the logic fails you fool.


I have established your hypocrisy though. You've stated the vegan must
act in all ways against what they believe is wrong. That you have a few
minutes to communicate with means that you must not think sodomizing
children is wrong. Or, have I misunderstood and you think sodomizing
children is right and therefore your "moral obligation" is non-existent.

Please answer, Rick. Is sodomizing children wrong? And have you done
everything conceivable to stop it?

> >> The
> >> > vegan CHOOSES to avoid killing animals which they accomplish.
> >> ======================
> >> And your proof of this delusion is, pansy-boy? I await your cites.

> >
> > Aw, another person who is going to google us to death. Cut and paste is
> > a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

> ====================
> LOL You have neither, fool.


I feel like I'm in a re-run of the defunct A-Team.

> I offered to examine
> > statistics, each time being declined.

> ========================
> I thought so. You have nothing to back up your ignorant delusions. thanks
> for the admission, queer-boy.


Well, thank you for the free advertising.

> >> The grower
> >> > CHOOSES to kill animals such as birds, frogs, etc.
> >> =====================
> >> At the behest of the consumer fool. In this case, the vegan loon who
> >> has
> >> already made it a point of making grandious claims of not killing
> >> animals.
> >> The vegan *could* make choices that don't require the death and suffering
> >> of
> >> animals, but the ones here on usenet do not make those choices,. The
> >> vegan *could* choose a grower that chooses not to cause death and
> >> suffering,
> >> or become his own grower, but agaibn, the usenet vegan doesn't. He's too
> >> into looking for scapegoats to ease the guilty conscience they have.
> >> Afterall, as long as they can focus all their energy on what they think
> >> others are doing, they can conveninetly ignore their own bloody
> >> footprints.

> >
> > Behest? You do make me laugh. They are my minions after all. I control
> > all the food growers with a single thought. I want and they must
> > respond. They have no choice. They must kill. I control their arms and
> > their equipment. I AM ALL POWERFUL. I think of meat or throw down a few
> > dollars and suddenly growers the world over feel compelled to respond to
> > my needs. They are my pawns in this delicious game of control that I
> > exert over everyone.

> ==================
> lack of intelligent response, noted.


I made them do it. I made them kill. I made them kill collaterally. It's
all my doing. They are just my pawns. I am the MAN.

> >> >> Now would you like to
> >> >> > mention a few vegan farmers who are producing. Or will you continue
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > make generalizations out of desperation.
> >> >> ==================
> >> >> LOL It's you that has been free with the generalization, pansy-boy.

> >
> > Ah, the true mark of a coward. Will you threaten me with violence next?

> =======================
> I see your comprehension problem is still in effect, eh fool?


Oh, just kiss me. These attempts at foreplay are tiresome.
  #479 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
> >> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here,
> >> pansy-boy,
> >> but you have already lost, again.

> >
> > Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

> ======================
> No, there are not. You have choices. You make the one that causes death.
> Your choice led to it, you paid for it. You are culpable.


You made me do it. I made you do it. What a world we live in.

Actually, someone paid me to go to the store and buy meat today, so they
are responsible. I have no accountability in the world, just like you.

> > I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
> > use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
> > any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
> > outcomes of his actions.

> ================
> LOL Idiocy 101? Is that what passes as logic in your world?


"He made me do it, officer. I had no choice. I couldn't say no, or the
cheque would bounce."

"I'm weak your honour. I can't resist a couple of bucks. I have no will
or strength of character or ego."

Don't blame me, it's a.....dutch's fault. Ya that's it. It's Dutch's
fault. If he didn't do X then I wouldn't do Y.

> > What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
> > indicative of flawed reasoning.

> =================
> You should know all about flawed reasoning, fool. It's all you have
> presented.


Command me, oh, powerful one. I am not in control of my own actions.
Everything that I do is because you command it. If you didn't type, then
I wouldn't type. I must blame you for the fact that my fingers are on my
keyboard in my home. I must blame you for my musciles and tendons
driving my fingers over the keyboard. YOU caused this.
  #480 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . net>,
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> >> When the actions you knowingly take result in those deaths, then yes, you
> >> are culpable. You can continue to try and pass the buck here,
> >> pansy-boy,
> >> but you have already lost, again.

> >
> > Same difficulty. My actions are independent of the outcomes.

> ======================
> No, there are not. You have choices. You make the one that causes death.
> Your choice led to it, you paid for it. You are culpable.


You made me do it. I made you do it. What a world we live in.

Actually, someone paid me to go to the store and buy meat today, so they
are responsible. I have no accountability in the world, just like you.

> > I could for example pay a hitman 10K. He might kill a person. He might
> > use the money for charity. He might take the money and run. He might do
> > any number of things. I am not responsible for his action and the
> > outcomes of his actions.

> ================
> LOL Idiocy 101? Is that what passes as logic in your world?


"He made me do it, officer. I had no choice. I couldn't say no, or the
cheque would bounce."

"I'm weak your honour. I can't resist a couple of bucks. I have no will
or strength of character or ego."

Don't blame me, it's a.....dutch's fault. Ya that's it. It's Dutch's
fault. If he didn't do X then I wouldn't do Y.

> > What are often described as logical consequences of actions are
> > indicative of flawed reasoning.

> =================
> You should know all about flawed reasoning, fool. It's all you have
> presented.


Command me, oh, powerful one. I am not in control of my own actions.
Everything that I do is because you command it. If you didn't type, then
I wouldn't type. I must blame you for the fact that my fingers are on my
keyboard in my home. I must blame you for my musciles and tendons
driving my fingers over the keyboard. YOU caused this.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The perfect G&T.... Aussie General Cooking 19 24-11-2010 07:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 08:27 PM
Perfect BBQ was had Duwop Barbecue 0 27-05-2005 10:47 PM
The perfect cup of tea Captain Infinity Tea 12 19-04-2005 08:20 PM
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) Jay Santos Vegan 23 19-12-2004 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"