 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > "If the spices I needed were available locally I would > [consume only locally grown produce]." > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > argument. Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live up to your expectations for perfection? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >> >> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>argument. > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Because they don't believe in the supposedly fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Sophomore Ron wrote: > > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >> > >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >> > >> > >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>argument. > > > > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > > Because they don't believe in the supposedly > fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. > > Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? I have. You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the logical systems do. That you are claiming one must be 100% or absolute or be a "non-believer" then there is a separate issue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote: >> >> >>>In article .net>, >>> Jay Santos > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>> >>>> >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>argument. >>> >>> >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? >> >>Because they don't believe in the supposedly >>fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place. >> >>Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron? > > > I have. You haven't. > You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the > logical systems do. False. Nothing I've said indicates such a thought or belief on my part. You have failed, again, to read and comprehend correctly. You, at least, are very consistent in this failure. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote: > In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > "If the spices I needed were available locally I would > > [consume only locally grown produce]." > > > > - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > > > > > > The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > > cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > > argument. > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans live > up to your expectations for perfection? It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get it, banbrains. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with who's who. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with > who's who. How do you like it? The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy. He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never admit it. At least he has ambition :>) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > > wrote > > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with > > who's who. > > How do you like it? > > The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from alt.philosophy. > He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his agenda > seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he can > pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack > misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on > people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never > admit it. At least he has ambition :>) Let's test your's and Jay's theory.... What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure the belief of the wrongness was being addressed. Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement. the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >> > Thanks, this new google interface makes it difficult to keep up with >> > who's who. >> >> How do you like it? >> >> The new Ron is a meat-eater ****wit trolled in to aaev from >> alt.philosophy. >> He's not actually interested in the substance of the discussions, his >> agenda >> seems to be to select people he perceives as worth beating and see if he >> can >> pick their arguments apart, as an exercise in debating. When an attack >> misfires, he simply moves on to another. The problem is, he is picking on >> people much more well-informed than himself, and naturally he will never >> admit it. At least he has ambition :>) > > Let's test your's and Jay's theory.... > > What is something that you consider absolutely wrong? Since you are > speaking to me and others, we can then conclude that you see nothing as > an absolute wrong lest you would be doing all that you could to ensure > the belief of the wrongness was being addressed. > > Come on dutch, make whatever proclamations that you like about me, but I > hope that you are going to demonstrate that "truth" of your statement. > > the easiest example to "beat" you with is, when is it absolutely wrong > to kill a human. Since communicating with me doesn't prevent the killing > of a human, you are not doing all you could. As you have agreed that SW > is a hypocrite for her failure you to do so, by your own measure so are > you. Ouch! Poor attempt Ron. First of all, killing a human is not absolutely wrong, it's wrong by default, but there are several exceptions. Arguably nothing is *absolutely* wrong, but that's another debate. More importantly, you are confusing passive and active rights. We are not morally obliged under rights theory to seek out every injustice everywhere and attempt to stamp them all out. We are not supermen. What we are morally obliged to do is refrain from any deliberate act that leads to a rights violation. This leads us to the case of vegans, they begin by postulating that animals possess the same basic right to life as humans. They try to come into accord with this idea by attempting (usually ineptly) to remove "animal products" from their lives. But if animals truly have a "basic right to life", then they must go further, because the food they buy in the markets and most every product that benefits them entails the violation of many of these alleged rights, and they are deliberately subsizing it all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > wrote: >> >> >>>Ron wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article .net>, >>>>Jay Santos > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>>> >>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>>argument. >>>> >>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans >>> >>>live >>> >>> >>>>up to your expectations for perfection? >>> >>> >>>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT >>>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which >>>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get >>>it, banbrains. >> >>K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both >>initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he >>most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a >>shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was >>another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit >>Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the >>latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW, >>but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself >>a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division >>philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada. > > > Well, when someone can find some academic references that humans must > conform to logical systems Strawman - I never said that, nor was it implied by anything I wrote. You just can't read for comprehension. You demonstrate your inability with every post. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ups.com... 8< > It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT > living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which > most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get > it, banbrains. we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not 1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture" (organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds 2) We rarely live up to that standard because society imposes different conditions due to less concern for animal welfare - this is a further case for more veganism (not less). This is little different from slavery abolitionists who still benefitted from the products of slavery, but didn't keep slaves, and of course, opposed slavery. Like vegans, they were not hypocrits, and it seems society eventually agreed that they were morally right. 3) No reasonable case has been made that "pasture fed" (a very misleading title) beef is better than vegan food in terms of cds - pasturing is probably never any better than growing plants for direct consumption because of the 90% loss of energy input (you need far more land available for pasturing per calorie yielded). Worse "pasture fed" is very misleading as such cattle can be fed quite high amounts of "concentrates". This includes things like barley and corn, maybe up to 5 pounds daily, and on top of that protein (some from dead fish or chicken) and vitamin supplements (in the UK 75% of land is already used for farming, much of which to grow animal feeds, thus promoting more meat eating in the UK, or anywhere similar is a very bad environmental move). The Innu peoples and Tibetans (and similar) will probably need to keep eating animals for practical reasons, most people in the West do not. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Coleman wrote:
> > wrote in message > ups.com... > 8< > >>It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT >>living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which >>most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get >>it, banbrains. > > > we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not No, you do NOT "get it". You have formulated an ethical absolute - "it is wrong to kill animals" - and then you don't even ATTEMPT to abide by the dictates of that alleged belief. > > 1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture" > (organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds NO ONE, Coleman, avoids killing animals. > > 2) We rarely live up to that standard You NEVER live up to that standard, Coleman, you ****ing idiot. > because society imposes different > conditions due to less concern for animal welfare No. There you go again, blaming YOUR failure to abide by YOUR alleged beliefs on others. That simply is not tenable. > - this is a further case for more veganism (not less). NO, Coleman, you shitbag: it is PURELY a case for you to abandon your unthinking, blind obedience to stupid dogma. The failure is entire on the shoulders of "vegans", and no one else. > This is little different from slavery There is vast difference from slavery. You keep telling the same lies. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, you, in particular, do not get it. Also, you haven't pointed out anything to me, try to keep up. 1) "Some" vegans practicing "Veganic agriculture" (you made up that non-word, didn't you), is irrelevant in reference to the specific vegan whom this thread is about. YOU definitely DO NOT GET IT. 2) Blaming your own ethical failings on society is a cop-out and a very weak one at that. Once again we witness the sick, twisted mindset of an unethical vegan comparing animals killed in agriculture to slavery. How long will it be before you bring up the Nazi concentration camps, you pathetic slime? 3) What the hell does pasture-fed beef have to do with anything I said? In any event, your unsupported claims are not evidence of anything except your inability to support your claims. All you have is an unsubstantiated collection of "probably's", "maybe's", "some's" and "can be's". As far as intelligent debate is concerned, you are your own worst enemy. As for your last sentence: what does "need" have to do with anything? If your position was based on any true ethical principles, you would have no choice but to tell the Inuit and Tibetans they should either: a) move and adapt, or b) die You have no ethics; just a self-gratifying, smug compulsion to tell other people how to live their lives. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sophomore Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>[consume only locally grown produce]." >> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >> >> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>argument. > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy equivocation. If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small children with a broom handle on a daily basis? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
> with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > equivocation. > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about sodomizing children and comparing it to meat eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>equivocation. >> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > Careful with this one Ron. Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not? Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it as acceptable? You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just something that makes us all worse off than we would be if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE better off for having attained the reduction. But ethical values are different; they're not utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely. Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe - as you claim to believe - that killing animals is absolutely wrong. You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical thinking. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children > >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > >>equivocation. > >> > >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > > > > Careful with this one Ron. > > Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward > question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not? You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse to meat eating. Since you approve of meat eating, this makes me worry that you approve of child abuse since you find it comparable. > Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's > wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it > as acceptable? It's like pollution...  > You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like > pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just > something that makes us all worse off than we would be > if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not > absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a > reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE > better off for having attained the reduction. Who are you to say whether pollution is morally wrong or not? I would compare my views on meateating to your pollution example. > But ethical values are different; they're not > utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction > in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an > improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely. > Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the > killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe - > as you claim to believe - that killing animals is > absolutely wrong. First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child. I hope the same goes for you. As far as cds caused by the food industry, it's kinda like pollution... -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical > thinking. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>>>equivocation. >>>> >>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? >>> >>> >>>Careful with this one Ron. >> >>Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward >>question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not? > > > You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse > to meat eating. The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone to do any of it. >>Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's >>wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it >>as acceptable? > > > It's like pollution... No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a utilitarian standpoint. > > >>You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like >>pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just >>something that makes us all worse off than we would be >>if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not >>absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a >>reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE >>better off for having attained the reduction. > > > Who are you to say whether pollution is morally > wrong or not? It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong. > >>But ethical values are different; they're not >>utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction >>in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an >>improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely. >>Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the >>killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe - >>as you claim to believe - that killing animals is >>absolutely wrong. > > > First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child. Why not? You could, and apparently you still would feel good about yourself, just so long as you were abusing a child less often than someone else, or perhaps less often than you did last year. That was the whole point of the example. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
> > to meat eating. > > The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that > some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is > absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone > to do any of it. > > It's like pollution... > > No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was > the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution > isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a > utilitarian standpoint. But it is like pollution. Less polution benefits the human animal as well as other lifeforms. Less land taken from nature to grow excessive crop needs benefit humans and animals too. > > Who are you to say whether pollution is morally > > wrong or not? > > It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong. I do. I think it's morally wrong to do what many big companies do to the air and water. Any effort to lessen damage on their part would be a good thing in my view. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Santos > wrote in news:2LYzd.4737$qf5.66
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net: Didn't really want to jump into this thread, but this is too ridiculous to ignore. > But ethical values are different; they're not > utilitarian. There are a good many utilitarian ethicists who would disagree with you. In fact, utilitarianism is the dominant, though not the only, approach to moral reasoning, especially in Anglo-American academia. Furthermore, not only utilitarians, but many ethicists favoring other approaches, such as deontologists, would adopt some form of the "least harm" rule. Sometimes doing no harm is not an available option. And sometimes causing less of one harm may cause more of another. Thus the rule, "do the least harm, all things considered, that the circumstances and available choices permit." > Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just > something that makes us all worse off than we would be > if there were no pollution. Anything that may make anyone worse off or better off is by definition a moral issue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children > > with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > > equivocation. > > > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > Careful with this one Ron. He loves to talk about > sodomizing children and comparing it to meat > eating. Why he loves to talk about it I don't know. Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality. Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you get the memo. roflmao |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Meat eating is the sign of latent homosexuality.
> > Shh. You'll scare them away and I'm on a membership drive. Didn't you > get the memo. roflmao LOL Good luck. You get an extra chalk mark on the wall for bedding a phobic troll! That's a hard one to do (pun happened). -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Sophomore Ron wrote: > > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >> > >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >> > >> > >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>argument. > > > > > > Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > > Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children > with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > equivocation. > > If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > children with a broom handle on a daily basis? That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence together is somewhat concerning. In fact, all of your analogies seem to place her choice to avoid meat where possible with such actions. If the choice to avoid meat where possible is on par with sexual violence, I guess that the choice to eat meat is on the same level. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article .net>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Sophomore Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article .net>, >>> Jay Santos > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>> >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>> >>>> >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>argument. >>> >>> >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? >> >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>equivocation. >> >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy equivocation." Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > In article .net>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>Sophomore Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article .net>, > >>> Jay Santos > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >>>> > >>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>>>argument. > >>> > >>> > >>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > >> > >>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children > >>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > >>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > >>equivocation. > >> > >>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > >>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > >>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > >>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > >>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > > > > > > That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence > > I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric > shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with > your usual blowhard windy equivocation." > > Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with > a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small > children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes > or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. Do you? Do you do everything possible in furtherance of this belief? NO? You're having a discussion with me. Obviously, you are spending time here rather than following through on your *belief* (ahem) that this behaviour is wrong. I am only left to one conclusion: you don't believe that this wrong, otherwise you COULD and WOULD do more. Shame. She lets some animals die. You let children get sodomized. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article et>, > Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >>>In article .net>, >>> Jay Santos > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article .net>, >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would >>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." >>>>>> >>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to >>>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the >>>>>>argument. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? >>>> >>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children >>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, >>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy >>>>equivocation. >>>> >>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who >>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two >>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in >>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small >>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? >>> >>> >>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence >> >>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric >>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with >>your usual blowhard windy equivocation." >> >>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with >>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small >>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes >>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. > > > Do you? Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe sodomizing small children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in reading yet more of your trite sophistry. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net>,
Jay Santos > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Jay Santos > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >>>In article .net>, > >>> Jay Santos > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In article .net>, > >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would > >>>>>>[consume only locally grown produce]." > >>>>>> > >>>>>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to > >>>>>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the > >>>>>>argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? > >>>> > >>>>Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children > >>>>with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no, > >>>>Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy > >>>>equivocation. > >>>> > >>>>If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who > >>>>sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two > >>>>or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in > >>>>comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small > >>>>children with a broom handle on a daily basis? > >>> > >>> > >>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence > >> > >>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric > >>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with > >>your usual blowhard windy equivocation." > >> > >>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with > >>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small > >>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes > >>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry. > > > > > > Do you? > > Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe > sodomizing small children with broom handles to be > morally wrong? > > Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in > reading yet more of your trite sophistry. We both must think it okay. Since we have time to discuss anything here. Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong. Since neither of us is doing everything possible, we both must think it okay. Since both of us are not doing everything possible, we both must be complicit. Join the club, wit**** or bagshit, or whatever those cute expressions are roflmao |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The perfect G&T.... | General Cooking | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| Perfect BBQ was had | Barbecue | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) | Vegan | |||
Hybrid Mode
