Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>fruit display Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>fruit display Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There is no subsitution, and there definitely is not
>>>>>>>>>>any "coincidence".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've demonstrate this point several times
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. You merely claim, falsely, to have "demonstrate" it.
>>
>>And you sure as hell didn't identify any "coincidence".
>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are several logical fallacies related to cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not that you've identified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I was being generous.
>>>>
>>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>>You have identified no fallacies.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
>>
>>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
>>took the opportunity, too.
>
>
> Your continued preference to

point out that you have identified no fallacies is
based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>>More like .002%
> >>
> >>100%
> >
> >
> > The only thing that's 100% out there is
>
> the certainty that 100% of "vegans" suffer from the
> obsessive/compulsive disorder known as orthrexia.

The phantom illness put forth by a "specialist" in alternative medicine.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>You've already begin labeling people with an unrecognized ailment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is recognized.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Really.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Believing that this ailment is recognized when I won't be able to find
> >>>it in the DSM
> >>
> >>Inclusion in the DSM is not the only form of recognition.
> >
> >
> > Must we discuss another logical fallacy
>
> Not "another"; you have yet to identify one.

My pity is getting in the way of debating this with you. I'll let you
win this point. You're right. I didn't identify anything, Rudy. Mea
culpa.

> > There is a scale.
>
> There is no scale. Something is wrong, or it is not wrong.

I know you find this hard to absorb, but I
have a scale for wrongness. You obviously
don't. Maybe that's why it's so hard for you
to believe that I have a scale for it.

> >>>>>All ARAs are vegan but
> >>>>>not all vegans are ARAs
> >>>>
> >>>>False.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Try again.
> >>
> >>False. It will be the same with each try: false.
> >>
> >>All "aras" are "vegans", and all "vegans" are "aras".
> >>"veganism" IS the consumption preferences expression of
> >>"aras".

But ARAs is not necessarily the social choice a
vegan joins up with. By eliminating all the remaining
traces of animal stuff in my diet, I will consider
myself a vegan. So far, no one has told me I
must join up with an activist group.

> > Then who are all these non-activist veggies I
> > keep meeting (including myself)
>
> They all fancy themselves activists, but like you, they
> are passivists.

So now you're saying that (all vegan?) are NOT
activists, but passivists? Can't some be both
at the same time? Above you were claiming
all vegans are ARAs and now here you're
saying they're not. Please make up your mind.

> Their refusal to consume animal parts is based on a
> belief in "ar".

That's not the reason for lots of vegans. Why even
you were recently saying all vegans are in it
becaused they're obsessed with health. Some
vegans do it for health, for the animals, for
a fad, for religion. There's many reasons, too
many to assume that all vegans are in it for
animal reasons.


--
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>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>fruit display Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>fruit display Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>There is no subsitution, and there definitely is not
> >>>>>>>>>>any "coincidence".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I've demonstrate this point several times
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No. You merely claim, falsely, to have "demonstrate" it.
> >>
> >>And you sure as hell didn't identify any "coincidence".
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There are several logical fallacies related to cause.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Not that you've identified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I was being generous.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
> >>>>
> >>>>You have identified no fallacies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
> >>
> >>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
> >>took the opportunity, too.
> >
> >
> > Your continued preference to
>
> point out that you have identified no fallacies is
> based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
> clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.

I'll allow you your delusions.

> >>>More like .002%
> >>
> >>100%
> >
> >
> > The only thing that's 100% out there is
>
> the certainty that 100% of "vegans" suffer from the
> obsessive/compulsive disorder known as orthrexia.

Bunk and quackery. Quack, quack!!


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You've already begin labeling people with an unrecognized ailment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is recognized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Believing that this ailment is recognized when I won't be able to find
>>>>>it in the DSM
>>>>
>>>>Inclusion in the DSM is not the only form of recognition.
>>>
>>>
>>>Must we discuss another logical fallacy
>>
>>Not "another"; you have yet to identify one.
>
>
> My

incompetence

> is getting in the way of debating this with you.

I know.

You haven't identified any fallacy. None was
committed, but you are incompetent to identify any even
if there were.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>There is a scale.
>>
>>There is no scale. Something is wrong, or it is not wrong.
>
>
> I know you find this hard to absorb

There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
or it is not wrong.

>
>>>>>>>All ARAs are vegan but
>>>>>>>not all vegans are ARAs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>False.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Try again.
>>>>
>>>>False. It will be the same with each try: false.
>>>>
>>>>All "aras" are "vegans", and all "vegans" are "aras".
>>>>"veganism" IS the consumption preferences expression of
>>>>"aras".
>
>
> But ARAs is not necessarily the social choice a
> vegan joins up with.

It's what MOTIVATES the "veganism" to begin with.
Anything else, e.g. "health", is not "veganism", it's
merely vegetarianism.

>
>
>>>Then who are all these non-activist veggies I
>>>keep meeting (including myself)
>>
>>They all fancy themselves activists, but like you, they
>>are passivists.
>
>
> So now you're saying that (all vegan?)

are passivists. Yes: choosing not to put meat in your
mouth is utterly passive, and does not thing to advance
the shitty cause of animal "rights".

>
>>Their refusal to consume animal parts is based on a
>>belief in "ar".
>
>
> That's not the reason for lots of vegans.

That's the reason for ALL "vegans".

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>You've already begin labeling people with an unrecognized ailment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It is recognized.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Really.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Believing that this ailment is recognized when I won't be able to find
> >>>>>it in the DSM
> >>>>
> >>>>Inclusion in the DSM is not the only form of recognition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Must we discuss another logical fallacy
> >>
> >>Not "another"; you have yet to identify one.
> >
> >
> > My
>
> incompetence
>
> > is getting in the way of debating this with you.
>
> I know.
>
> You haven't identified any fallacy. None was
> committed, but you are incompetent to identify any even
> if there were.

That's right, Rudy. I made no comments as to logical fallacies, which
specific ones, nor did I provide examples. It is all a figment of my
imagination. After all, just look above these lines...there's no
evidence there now.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I was being generous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have identified no fallacies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
>>>>
>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
>>>>took the opportunity, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your continued preference to
>>
>>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
>>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
>>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
>
>
> I'll allow you

nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You've already begin labeling people with an unrecognized ailment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is recognized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Believing that this ailment is recognized when I won't be able to find
>>>>>>>it in the DSM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inclusion in the DSM is not the only form of recognition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Must we discuss another logical fallacy
>>>>
>>>>Not "another"; you have yet to identify one.
>>>
>>>
>>>My
>>
>>incompetence
>>
>>
>>>is getting in the way of debating this with you.
>>
>>I know.
>>
>>You haven't identified any fallacy. None was
>>committed, but you are incompetent to identify any even
>>if there were.
>
>
> That's right

Yes - it's right.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> or it is not wrong.

Yes, Rudy. There is no scale of wrongness. It is equally wrong to lie
about one's age and to kill another person. Silly us for assuming that
wrongness can be viewed in degrees. What's wrong is wrong and there is
no getting around that.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>I was being generous.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You have identified no fallacies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
> >>>>
> >>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
> >>>>took the opportunity, too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your continued preference to
> >>
> >>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
> >>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
> >>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
> >
> >
> > I'll allow you
>
> nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.

I'm not suggesting that you are a nutcase that should be
institutionalized. I'm merely stating that it isn't my responsibility to
challenge the delusions of a mental health patient. That is typically
the role of the health care provider.

You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
exist.

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>or it is not wrong.
>
>
> There is no scale of wrongness.

Correct. You appear to be learning.

> It is equally wrong to lie
> about one's age and to kill another person.

Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
equally bad.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I was being generous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have identified no fallacies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
>>>>>>took the opportunity, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your continued preference to
>>>>
>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
>>>>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
>>>>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll allow you
>>
>>nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.
>
> You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
> exist.

You exist as a minor annoyance, and an impediment to
useful discussion.

> > I know you find this hard to absorb
>
> There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> or it is not wrong.

That's how your brain sees it, but mine
sees different levels of wrongness.

> It's what MOTIVATES the "veganism" to begin with.
> Anything else, e.g. "health", is not "veganism", it's
> merely vegetarianism.

There are those who will always want to call
me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
That's alright,.they just follow the original
meaning of the word vegan. But I believe
that quite a few people follow the modern
meaning and are not necessarily the
active ARAs you say they are

Rudy/Jay/ Jonnie on the spot.
you will never listen to logic.


--
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:

>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
>>
>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>or it is not wrong.
>
>
> That's how

It is. It's just how it is: things are wrong, or they
are not wrong. GIVEN that something is wrong, it makes
sense to ask how bad it is. It never makes sense to
ask "how wrong" something is; something is wrong, or it
isn't, and there is no scale to it. What someone MEANS
when they ask that is:

1. s/he is caving in to linguistic slovenliness and
indicating
s/he watches too much television;
2. "how bad": the person MEANS "how bad"


>>It's what MOTIVATES the "veganism" to begin with.
>>Anything else, e.g. "health", is not "veganism", it's
>>merely vegetarianism.
>
>
> There are those who will always want to call
> me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.

You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I was being generous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You mean you were being disingenuous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You have identified no fallacies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I was allowing you the opportunity to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies. I
> >>>>>>took the opportunity, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your continued preference to
> >>>>
> >>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
> >>>>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
> >>>>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'll allow you
> >>
> >>nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.
> >
> > You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
> > exist.
>
> You exist as a minor annoyance, and an impediment to
> useful discussion.

Well, your sadistic nature does seem to surface when I'm around. Of
course, my expectations for discussion usually apply to those who are
not classed as mentally ill. Forgive me for having standards higher than
your abilities.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Your continued preference to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
>>>>>>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
>>>>>>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll allow you
>>>>
>>>>nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.
>>>
>>>You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
>>>exist.
>>
>>You exist as a minor annoyance, and an impediment to
>>useful discussion.
>
>
> Well, your sadistic nature

I don't have a sadistic nature, felcher Ron.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>or it is not wrong.
> >
> >
> > There is no scale of wrongness.
>
> Correct. You appear to be learning.
>
> > It is equally wrong to lie
> > about one's age and to kill another person.
>
> Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
> equally bad.

I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness. Tell
us more about this, or about how bad you are. Are you a bad boy?

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>or it is not wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no scale of wrongness.
>>
>>Correct. You appear to be learning.
>>
>>
>>>It is equally wrong to lie
>>>about one's age and to kill another person.
>>
>>Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
>>equally bad.
>
>
> I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness.

You already knew this.

> >>>I know you find this hard to absorb
> >>
> >>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>or it is not wrong.

Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
Usually, because it's accepted in some forms of dance,
and in cases of accidents, it's only a bit wrong. You
wouldn't get very mad at that person for not watching
where they were going. A hostage taker / murderer
takes 100 people and starts killing 10 every hour
with unreasonable demands is doing something
very very wrong. Pretty high up on the scale,
unlike the bumper who is pretty low down on the
scale.

> > There are those who will always want to call
> > me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
>
> You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.

There are many vegan recipe sites out there that
would disagree with you. One definitely can eat
vegan.


--
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:
>>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
>>>>
>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>or it is not wrong.
>
>
> Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.

No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
is definitely worse than the other.

See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?

>
>>>There are those who will always want to call
>>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
>>
>>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
>
>
> There are many vegan recipe sites out there

They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
food; ONLY the person.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Your continued preference to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>point out that you have identified no fallacies is
> >>>>>>based on a wish to promote rationality, honesty and
> >>>>>>clarity of thinking. You would do well to emulate it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll allow you
> >>>>
> >>>>nothing. I don't need your allowance for anything.
> >>>
> >>>You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
> >>>exist.
> >>
> >>You exist as a minor annoyance, and an impediment to
> >>useful discussion.
> >
> >
> > Well, your sadistic nature
>
> I don't have a sadistic nature, felcher Ron.

No, of course you don't, Rudy. The devil is making you type these
remarks. Can we conclude that sadism is good and right, or bad and wrong?

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are right. I've made no arguments here. Hell, I probably don't even
>>>>>exist.
>>>>
>>>>You exist as a minor annoyance, and an impediment to
>>>>useful discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, your sadistic nature
>>
>>I don't have a sadistic nature, felcher Ron.
>
>
> No, of course you don't

Right. That's what I just said.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>>>or it is not wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There is no scale of wrongness.
> >>
> >>Correct. You appear to be learning.
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is equally wrong to lie
> >>>about one's age and to kill another person.
> >>
> >>Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
> >>equally bad.
> >
> >
> > I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness.
>
> You already knew this.

I guess it helps to mitigate your own behaviour if you can view badness
in degrees. Where does sadism fall on the scale of bad, Rudy?

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>>>or it is not wrong.
> >
> >
> > Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
>
> No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
> carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
> another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
> then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
> carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
> much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
> are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
> is definitely worse than the other.
>
> See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?

Yes. I notice just how easy it is for you to be sadistic and cruel.

> >>>There are those who will always want to call
> >>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
> >>
> >>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
> >
> >
> > There are many vegan recipe sites out there
>
> They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
> not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
> as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
> food; ONLY the person.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>>>or it is not wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no scale of wrongness.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. You appear to be learning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is equally wrong to lie
>>>>>about one's age and to kill another person.
>>>>
>>>>Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
>>>>equally bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness.
>>
>>You already knew this.
>
>
> [snip non sequitur]

Don't bother replying if you're not going to address
the issue substantively, homo felcher Ron.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>There are those who will always want to call
>>>>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
>>>>
>>>>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are many vegan recipe sites out there
>>
>>They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
>>not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
>>as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
>>food; ONLY the person.
>
>
> Well, there's dozens and dozens of recipe sites
> out there who use the dietary definition of the
> word vegan when describing their recipes.

There is no "dietary definition of the word 'vegan'."

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>>>or it is not wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
>>
>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
>>is definitely worse than the other.
>>
>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
>
>
> Yes.

Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
easy at all.

>
>
>>>>>There are those who will always want to call
>>>>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
>>>>
>>>>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are many vegan recipe sites out there
>>
>>They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
>>not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
>>as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
>>food; ONLY the person.

> >>>There are those who will always want to call
> >>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
> >>
> >>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
> >
> >
> > There are many vegan recipe sites out there
>
> They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
> not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
> as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
> food; ONLY the person.

Well, there's dozens and dozens of recipe sites
out there who use the dietary definition of the
word vegan when describing their recipes.

When food is involved it's an adjective. If
you go to a vegetarian pot luck, the dishes
are usually labeled so that people know
what's vegan food. Vegan is an adjective
when used in front of the words food or
recipes.


--
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>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article . net>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>>>>>or it is not wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There is no scale of wrongness.
> >>>>
> >>>>Correct. You appear to be learning.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It is equally wrong to lie
> >>>>>about one's age and to kill another person.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
> >>>>equally bad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness.
> >>
> >>You already knew this.
> >
> >
> > [snip non sequitur]
>
> Don't bother replying if you're not going to address
> the issue substantively, homo felcher Ron.

I promised the others that I would continue to engage you until help
arrives.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>>>>>or it is not wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
> >>
> >>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
> >>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
> >>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
> >>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
> >>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
> >>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
> >>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
> >>is definitely worse than the other.
> >>
> >>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
> Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
> easy at all.

Your ability to be sadistic _appears_ to come to you with great ease. I
suspect that it is an integral part of your personality. You inability
to distance yourself from such behaviour would be my evidence that this
is true.

I'm not suggesting seroquel or respirodol, but I do think following your
doctor's orders might be in your best interest.

> >>>>>There are those who will always want to call
> >>>>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
> >>>>
> >>>>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There are many vegan recipe sites out there
> >>
> >>They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
> >>not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
> >>as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
> >>food; ONLY the person.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>>>>>or it is not wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no scale of wrongness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Correct. You appear to be learning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is equally wrong to lie
>>>>>>>about one's age and to kill another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes: both are equally wrong. They are not, however,
>>>>>>equally bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see there are not degrees of wrongness, only degrees of badness.
>>>>
>>>>You already knew this.
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip non sequitur]
>>
>>Don't bother replying if you're not going to address
>>the issue substantively, homo felcher Ron.
>
>
> I promised the others that

you would spew non sequiturs by the gross. You're
keeping your word to them, homo felcher Ron.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>>>>>>>>or it is not wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
>>>>
>>>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
>>>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
>>>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
>>>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
>>>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
>>>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
>>>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
>>>>is definitely worse than the other.
>>>>
>>>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
>>Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
>>easy at all.
>
>
> Your ability

thwarts you at every turn.

>
>
>>>>>>>There are those who will always want to call
>>>>>>>me vegetarian even when I'm eating vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't "eat 'vegan'". You eat vegetarian, or you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There are many vegan recipe sites out there
>>>>
>>>>They claim to be pushing "vegan" recipes. They are
>>>>not. They are supplying vegetarian recipes. If used
>>>>as an adjective, "vegan" refers to the person, not the
>>>>food; ONLY the person.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I know you find this hard to absorb
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
> >>>>>>>>or it is not wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
> >>>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
> >>>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
> >>>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
> >>>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
> >>>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
> >>>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
> >>>>is definitely worse than the other.
> >>>>
> >>>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes.
> >>
> >>Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
> >>Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
> >>easy at all.
> >
> >
> > Your ability
>
> thwarts you at every turn.

I seem to recall reading something about delusions of superhuman
abilities.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have you accept responsibliity
for your sadistic nature towards me and vegans. I suspect the pleasure
that you derive from this may be troubling for you. I suspect that you
must have some difficulty defining this on your scale of badness.

Sadism then must be (false dilemma consistent with your thinking) wrong
or not wrong. Then we must make a determination as to the extent of the
badness involved (to be consistent with your thinking).

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
>>>>>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
>>>>>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
>>>>>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
>>>>>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
>>>>>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
>>>>>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
>>>>>>is definitely worse than the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
>>>>Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
>>>>easy at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your ability
>>
>>thwarts you at every turn.
>
>
> I seem to

get thwarted at every turn.

Why do you keep at it, homo felcher Ron?

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
> >>>>>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
> >>>>>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
> >>>>>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
> >>>>>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
> >>>>>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
> >>>>>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
> >>>>>>is definitely worse than the other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
> >>>>Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
> >>>>easy at all.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your ability
> >>
> >>thwarts you at every turn.
> >
> >
> > I seem to
>
> get thwarted at every turn.
>
> Why do you keep at it, homo felcher Ron?

Dutch has an excuse being married to a whack job and being a reformed
one himself. Given you, rick and usual are repeating the same arguments,
I suspect that each of you are in similar predicaments.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...


snippage..


>
> Activities shared by the mentally ill are okay with me.
================
LOL This from the fudge-packing, HIV trolling queer-boy, poster child of
the mentally ill....

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>> > In article . net>,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>In article et>,
>> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>homo felcher Ron wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Carelessly bumping into someone is usually a bit wrong.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>No; carelessness is wrong, full stop. If the
>> >>>>>>carelessness leads to one pedestrian bumping into
>> >>>>>>another on the sidewalk, causing no injury or damage,
>> >>>>>>then it's not very bad; bad, but not very. If the
>> >>>>>>carelessness directly causes a vehicle accident, that's
>> >>>>>>much worse. Both incidents of carelessness, however,
>> >>>>>>are wrong. One is not more wrong than the other; one
>> >>>>>>is definitely worse than the other.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>See how easy this can be, homo felcher Ron?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Then why are you failing to make progress, homo felcher
>> >>>>Ron? Perhaps you lied - perhaps you don't find this
>> >>>>easy at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Your ability
>> >>
>> >>thwarts you at every turn.
>> >
>> >
>> > I seem to
>>
>> get thwarted at every turn.
>>
>> Why do you keep at it, homo felcher Ron?
>
> Dutch has an excuse being married to a whack job and being a reformed
> one himself. Given you, rick and usual are repeating the same arguments,
====================
Uh, hey fool, the group remains the same one, despite your ignorance. Now,
if we moved to another gropu with a different subject, then the 'argument'
would change. As long as the delusions of vegans and the wanna-bees keep
getting spewed, then the fact is the same argument keeps working. Is this
still too hard for you to follow, queer-boy?



> I suspect that each of you are in similar predicaments.