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
  #796 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:04 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article , "Dutch"
wrote:




"Ron" wrote in message
...



In article , "Dutch"

wrote:




"Ron" wrote



"Dutch"
wrote:




"Ron" wrote




Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
food.

I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

How do you know?

Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.


If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law.


Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.


His death can be
traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.


If I hadn't wanted or needed
meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.


[...]




No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.


Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.



Let's apply this thinking to another example.


No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

  #797 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:04 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article , "Dutch"
wrote:




"Ron" wrote in message
...



In article , "Dutch"

wrote:




"Ron" wrote



"Dutch"
wrote:




"Ron" wrote




Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
food.

I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

How do you know?

Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.


If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law.


Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.


His death can be
traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.


If I hadn't wanted or needed
meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.


[...]




No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.


Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.



Let's apply this thinking to another example.


No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.
  #798 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:48 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:




Ron wrote:




In article , "Dutch"
wrote:





"Ron" wrote in message
...




In article , "Dutch"

wrote:





"Ron" wrote




"Dutch"
wrote:





"Ron" wrote





Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
food.

I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

How do you know?

Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.


If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law.


Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.



His death can be
traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.



If I hadn't wanted or needed
meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.



[...]





No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.


Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.


No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.



All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.


No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.
  #799 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 06:58 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:




Ron wrote:




In article , "Dutch"

wrote:





"Ron" wrote in message
...




In article , "Dutch"

wrote:





"Ron" wrote




"Dutch"
wrote:





"Ron" wrote





Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not
law,
the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
food.

I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

How do you know?

Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.


If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do
that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
of
the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law.


Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.



His death can be
traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.



If I hadn't wanted or needed
meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.



[...]





No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.


Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.



All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.


No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.


Typically, I don't concern myself with such things. I think it's time
that I do. I think it is time to take the this feature of a very
illogical system to task.
  #800 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 09:35 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:


Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
of
the person who was killed as a result.


That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.


Unfortunately, you edited my statements.


I did not.

I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.


Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.




  #801 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 09:35 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:


Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
of
the person who was killed as a result.


That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.


Unfortunately, you edited my statements.


I did not.

I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.


Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.


  #802 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 11:12 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.


I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.


Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.


No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.

It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.


Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.


You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.


  #803 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 11:12 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.


I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.


Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.


No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.

It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.


Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.


You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.


  #804 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 04:18 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Dutch" wrote:

Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
of
the person who was killed as a result.

That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.


Unfortunately, you edited my statements.


I did not.

I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.


Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.


To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then there
are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
unacceptable to hypocritical.
  #805 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 05:27 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.


Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.


No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.


I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.


Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.


Then the "instinct" is not that powerful. I would argue that the level
of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
be observed in the world.

I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.
Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.

So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
assess them.

I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
remote that I can function. Others can't.

As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
evolves.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.


You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.


See above.


  #806 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 05:27 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:


I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance,
which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.


Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival.


No it doesn't. Whether we agree about hard-wiring or not, this line of
argument seems to be a diversion.


I've stated this at least twice. It is difficult to proceed in a
discussion with you when we disagree on the original premise.

It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.


Hardwiring does not mean that it absolutely can't be overriden, it means
it's a powerful instinct. Extremists who commit suicide override it, but
usually with some kind of fantasy about an afterlife. People who take risks
generally take safety measures and in addition usually do not believe that
they will actually suffer serious harm.


Then the "instinct" is not that powerful. I would argue that the level
of fear that one experiences related to perceptions of possible harm is
proportionate to the level of belief that the harm will happen.

We disagree on the original premise. Calling it intrinsic, normal,
instinct, innate, hardwiring, etc. is where we disagree. In my view,
these are learned responses based on prior experience and that which can
be observed in the world.

I live in a society that socializes males to be fearless not fearful.
Most men are even unable to use the term "fear" when referring to
themselves. This is an example of black and white thinking in my view
and leads to all sorts of interesting results.

Rather than acknowledge that I am human, I am male, I experience
emotions and from time to time I experience fear, this socialization
process results and the threat to perceptions of masculinity results in
irrational conclusions. Conclusions such as harm-avoidance is hardwired.
Most fears are irrational and can be be logically demonstrated as such.

I consider the paradoxical theory of change to be fairly consistent in
that one cannot change their fears until they can acknowledge them.
further, it can be reasoned and it has been researched that fears are
often self-fulfilling prophecies in that the individual will seek out
what they fear and even create X in the absence of it.

So, no. We disagree on the the largely heterosexual male perspective of
what is harm-avoidance, the inability to state fears and rationally
assess them.

I am rarely afraid that I will be murdered, but that is the reason I
appreciate the moral code and law against murder -- fear. Rationally,
the chances and situations where this _might_ or _could_ happen are so
remote that I can function. Others can't.

As a result of fear based responses and entire theory of morality
evolves.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.


You are ignoring all the evidence that it does exist because of relatively
rare, explainable exceptions. The vast majority of animal behaviour is
consistent with hard-wiring for survival.


See above.
  #807 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:02 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article . net,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.


No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.



Typically,


Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.
  #808 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:44 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article . net,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.



Typically,


Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.


You consistently demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. I'll check in
from time to time to see if you have evolved any.
  #809 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:44 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article . net,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.



Typically,


Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.


You consistently demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. I'll check in
from time to time to see if you have evolved any.
  #810 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2005, 07:52 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article . net,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



anal leakage wrote:



In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:




anal leakage wrote:



Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.


Let's apply this thinking to another example.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.


All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.


Typically,


Typically, you lie and pretend to avoid the obvious.



You consistently demonstrate your intellectual


superiority to skanky little homo sophists.

Yes, I know.


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 09:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017