 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:44 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> >****wit David Harrison wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>****wit wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >> >>>>>>>>even if you didn't exist. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sure it is. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>It's not an effective means. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We agree that >> >>>>it is a very effective means. >> >>> >> >>>It is not an effective means at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> We agree that it is >> > >> >We don't agree. It is not an effective means of >> >denying responsibility. >> >> It proves that we're not responsible for things >> that we're not responsible for. > >Empty tautology. > >It doesn't prove anything of the kind, It proves it without question. >****wit. Matheny clearly >demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls >apart. He does not, and he could not. >> >It doesn't hold up to basic >> >philsophical scrutiny. >> > >> > >> >>>>>>>See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >> >>>>>>>shared responsibility. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Do they explain how a person can be responsible for >> >>>>>>the death of an animal that happened before the person >> >>>>>>was born? >> >>>>> >> >>>>>That's not the issue here. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>But you do contribute to them, >> >>>>>>>>regardless of the significance of your contribution. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>In other words, she shares responsibility. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> She/we deliberately become part of groups which are >> >>>>>>responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take >> >>>>>>place without our participation we're not personally >> >>>>>>responsible. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>You are responsible: the deaths would not take place >> >>>>>if everyone withdrew. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> That doesn't in any way make me responsible. >> >>> >> >>>Yes, it does: shared responsibility for an outcome >> >>>resulting from a process in which you and other play an >> >>>integral part. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. >> >> >> >> >> >> It doesn't deal with it at all >> > >> >It does deal with it, and very well. >> > >> >The claim that "it would happen without me" doesn't >> >hold water. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>You cannot claim >> >>>>>no responsibility. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the >> >>>>deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way >> >>>>responsible for them, though I have contributed to some >> >>>>of them. >> >>> >> >>>You just contradicted yourself. >> >> >> >> >> >> No. >> > >> >Yes. You contradicted yourself. >> >> I would have been very > >You contradicted yourself, ****wit. You said you were a contributor to >a process that leads to an outcome but then disclaimed any >responsibility. That's absurd. You are responsible. I would have been very surprised if you were capable of understanding that a person can contribute to something, without being responsible for whether or not it takes place. You're just too stupid to understand things like that. >> >>>You bear >> >>>responsibility because without consumers like you, >> >>>there would be no animal industry at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not >> >> responsible. >> > >> >You are responsible. Without you and all others like >> >you, there would be no animals. > >This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the >deaths of whole animals. No I don't, now that you mention it. For example: I do not and will not view myself as responsible for the deaths of animals which I'm not responsible for. >> >You and all others who participate, no matter how >> >"atomically", are responsible. >> >> The group is responsible > >Groups cannot be responsible, only individuals. ALL the individuals in >the group are responsible. Few if any individuals in the group being discussed are responsible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two > > options > > > were > > > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > > > > > I'd have to break down and eat the meat, > > > which I consider unhealthy > > > > Yet you have no evidence to support that consideration. > > I have years and years of research No you don't. You're lying. and > personal experience. Personal anecdotes are not evidence. You don't have to > agree with me. Why would anyone agree with you when you shamelessly lie? > > > but healthier > > > than starving. That's a last resort to me. > > > As long as veg food is available, that's > > > what I'll choose. Even when shown low > > > deaths meats, which are rare (no pun) > > > enough to NOT be able to supply all > > > meat eaters, I will still choose a veg > > > food. Some veg foods are 0 death, > > > > Name one and then prove it. > > The zuchhinis and other produce I receive > each summer from friends with gardens. > The wild blueberries I picked on a camping > trip. The giant puffball mushroom that made > a huge meal for us at my mother's place. > The tomatoes and hot peppers from a > coworker's garden. It goes on and on. No it doesn't. All you've provided is a list of items you ASSUME involve zero animal deaths with, again, zero evidence. > > > > but meats always have at least 1. > > > > False. If I kill one deer, that's anywhere from 100-200 servings. The > > death toll per servng is then .005 to .01 animsls. Stop lying. > > Even if you only eat 1 serving the animal > still has to die (unless it's an amputation). Non-sequitur. Your use of the word "even" is incorrect because it is inapplicable to the situation I described. Since you don't understand logical fallacies, that's a goalpost move and a sloppy one. > > > > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat > > > meat. > > > > Prove it. > > No. Yes, this is a forum for discussion and debate. You made an absolute claim and it's your responsibility to either support the claim or retract it. Anything else is unethical behavior. That's for each to decide on their own. False, by the very words YOU typed, it is an absolute claim requiring supporting evidence. > I'm sure you can google stuff on both sides > of the debate. I'm not trying to talk you into > believing me, so I could care less about > going to all the work to prove it. So you freely admit you have no intention of supporting the claimsyou present. Thanks for the clarification. In case you haven't figured it out yet (you haven't, that would require more brain power than you possess on your best days), when you present something as fact rather than opinion, your only ethical alternative is to support the claim. You have demonstrated a pathetic lack of ethics and integrity. > > > Are you Rudy's new name? No. > > -- > 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 in message ... snippage... >> > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat >> > meat. >> >> Prove it. > > No. That's for each to decide on their own. ================ LOL Then you lied, eh killer. Thanks again for proving you have done zero real research, hypocrite... > I'm sure you can google stuff on both sides > of the debate. I'm not trying to talk you into > believing me, so I could care less about > going to all the work to prove it. > > > Are you Rudy's new name? > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 06:14:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > Matheny said your wife was a good ride. > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility, >>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the >>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF >>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf >>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader). >>>>>> >>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the >>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he >>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his >>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat >>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny >>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in >>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they >>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations. >>>>>> >>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem >>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however, >>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral >>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat. >>>>> >>>>>No, it does not. >>>> >>>>Yes, it does. >>> >>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >>>production, and after you've done that show where his >>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for >>>them. >> >>His article doesn't explicitly do that. Based on my >>extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. > > > QEF, but you've failed to do so. Ipse dixit, and false. > > >>>>>The paper sets out to prove that, while >>>>>some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an >>>>>adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a >>>>>single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm >>>>>animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians >>>>>cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and >>>>>must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions. >>>> >>>>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER >>> >>>I have read it, >> >>You did not. > > > I did, You didn't, Dreck. You CAN'T read that kind of material. You cut-and-pasted from the abstract, that's all. Did you hear Gaverick's and Belinda's bellies slapping together? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:44 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:46:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can't be responsible since they would happen >>>>>>>>>>>even if you didn't exist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's not an effective means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We agree that >>>>>>>it is a very effective means. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not an effective means at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We agree that it is >>>> >>>>We don't agree. It is not an effective means of >>>>denying responsibility. >>> >>> It proves that we're not responsible for things >>>that we're not responsible for. >> >>Empty tautology. >> >>It doesn't prove anything of the kind, > > > It proves Nothing, ****wit. You wrote an empty tautology that proves nothing. Go look up 'tautology', you ****ing drop-out. > > >>****wit. Matheny clearly >>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls >>apart. > > > He does not, and he could not. He did. He can, and he did. >>>>>>>>Matheny's paper deals with this well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't deal with it at all >>>> >>>>It does deal with it, and very well. >>>> >>>>The claim that "it would happen without me" doesn't >>>>hold water. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>You cannot claim >>>>>>>>no responsibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I can for the things I'm not responsible for, like the >>>>>>>deaths of the animals I eat. I am in absolutely no way >>>>>>>responsible for them, though I have contributed to some >>>>>>>of them. >>>>>> >>>>>>You just contradicted yourself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>> >>>>Yes. You contradicted yourself. >>> >>> I would have been very >> >>You contradicted yourself, ****wit. You said you were a contributor to >>a process that leads to an outcome but then disclaimed any >>responsibility. That's absurd. You are responsible. > > > I would have been You contradicted yourself, ****wit. Contributors to an outcome are responsible for the outcome. It's that simple, ****wit. > >>>>>>You bear >>>>>>responsibility because without consumers like you, >>>>>>there would be no animal industry at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Without me, the animals would still be dead, so I'm not >>>>>responsible. >>>> >>>>You are responsible. Without you and all others like >>>>you, there would be no animals. >> >>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the >>deaths of whole animals. > > > No I don't, Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. > > >>>>You and all others who participate, no matter how >>>>"atomically", are responsible. >>> >>> The group is responsible >> >>Groups cannot be responsible, only individuals. ALL the individuals in >>the group are responsible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > I have years and years of research
> > No you don't. You're lying. I'm not. I'm 42 and have been vegetarian since I was 18. I have always had an interest in nutrition and greedily absorbed many books, medical news, and studies. My personal repetoire of knowledge is quite good. > and > > personal experience. > > Personal anecdotes are not evidence. If it's my anecdote, it's evidence to me. You're free to disagree of course. > Why would anyone agree with you when you shamelessly lie? No shame, no lie >> No it doesn't. All you've provided is a list of items you ASSUME > involve zero animal deaths with, again, zero evidence. Why would I assume there IS animal deaths in wild picked and small garden grown foods? > > > > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat > > > > meat. > > > > > > Prove it. > > > > No. > > Yes, this is a forum for discussion and debate. You made an absolute > claim and it's your responsibility to either support the claim or > retract it. Anything else is unethical behavior. If I had known years ago, that I would be debating this topic, then maybe I would have kept records of sources. I didn't. All I kept was my conclusions. > That's for each to decide on their own. > > False, by the very words YOU typed, it is an absolute claim requiring > supporting evidence. Required of who? I don't have to. Just like you don't have to believe or agree with me. > So you freely admit you have no intention of supporting the claimsyou > present. Thanks for the clarification. In case you haven't figured it > out yet (you haven't, that would require more brain power than you > possess on your best days), when you present something as fact rather > than opinion, your only ethical alternative is to support the claim. > You have demonstrated a pathetic lack of ethics and integrity. I don't care what you think of me, since you're an insulting, assuming person. > > Are you Rudy's new name? > > No. You're very similar. Insults and statements about 'absolute claims', etc. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >> > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat
> >> > meat. > >> > >> Prove it. > > > > No. That's for each to decide on their own. > ================ > LOL Then you lied, eh killer. No lie. I'm just saying to each their own. > Thanks again for proving you have done zero real research, hypocrite... Research done, but sources and records not kept. I only kept my conclusions. -- 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 invite the insults through your blatant lies and ignorance. YOU
made an absolute claim and are running from it. Your claim that you no longer have the research, only the conclusions, leaves no doubt that everything you say is horseshit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Jon > wrote: > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:14:25 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:22:11 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >In article >, > >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >In article >, > >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:42:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >> >In article >, > >> >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >In article >, > >> >> >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Then forced complicity > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >There is no such thing. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > >> >> >> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > >> >> >> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > >> >> >> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > >> >> >> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > >> >> >> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force > >> >> >> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding > >> >> >> >the > >> >> >> >situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken > >> >> >> >arm > >> >> >> >and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of > >> >> >> >matching > >> >> >> >your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my > >> >> >> >forcing > >> >> >> >to > >> >> >> >counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. > >> >> >> >I > >> >> >> >also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of > >> >> >> >aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the > >> >> >> >option > >> >> >> >of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with > >> >> >> >an > >> >> >> >upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> All that, for friendly half Nelson? A bit rough. Seriously though, > >> >> >> despite any struggles, if Tyson decided you should stand with > >> >> >> your arm up your back, I'm sure he could force both of us to > >> >> >> comply and stand with our arms up our backs for however > >> >> >> long he wanted. In physical terms, then, forced complicity does > >> >> >> exist, but that's being a little unfair on my part because I'm sure > >> >> >> you were actually referring to our choices, and whether we can > >> >> >> be forced to comply with someone else's choices regardless of > >> >> >> our own. Enter free will. Do we really have it, or could it be that > >> >> >> we are compelled to act according to external influences and > >> >> >> antecedents? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I've often argued that the act of acting indicates free will cannot > >> >> >> exist. I believe that if our will to act was truly free, set like a > >> >> >> balance scale in equilibrium with no external forces or antecedents > >> >> >> acting upon it, we would not act. We would remain at rest, and, > >> >> >> as I'm sure you're already aware, if something is at rest it cannot > >> >> >> be moved unless an external force acts upon it. > >> >> > > >> >> >You could have saved us both time, by simply stating this. > >> >> > >> >> By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you > >> >> write below this one? > >> >> > >> >> >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. > >> >> > >> >> I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. > >> >> > >> >> >While I can > >> >> >think of examples where a human acts in response to external forces, > >> >> >there are examples where humans act into their environment. > >> >> >For example, I just returned to my chair after making a cup of coffee. > >> >> >For your theory to hold true, we would need to identify what external > >> >> >force that causing me to respond. I listen to a particular type of > >> >> >music > >> >> >daily. Again, I cannot see the external force that I am responding to > >> >> >in > >> >> >this case either. > >> >> > > >> >> >This is at least causes me to wonder how you are using the term force. > >> >> > >> >> The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, > >> >> ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before > >> >> acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve > >> >> any conflicts between them so that we can act according > >> >> to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right > >> >> now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the > >> >> antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. > >> >> Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then > >> >> drives my will not to smoke. > >> >> > >> >> If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing > >> >> between two choices, and picking either carries the same > >> >> gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither > >> >> and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear > >> >> for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not > >> >> act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but > >> >> that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > >> >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was > >> >> the originator of that unintentional choice. > >> >> > >> >> Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our > >> >> will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires > >> >> and antecedent events quickly. > >> >> > >> >> Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > >> >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > >> >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > >> >> we cannot have free will. > >> >> > >> >> For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on > >> >> my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves > >> >> free will cannot exist. > >> >> > >> >> 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external > >> >> influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. > >> >> 2) We act > >> >> therefore > >> >> 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, > >> >> time and antecedents. > >> > > >> >There is a fourth option that will is an exchange or balancing of > >> >internal and external forces. > >> > >> I did imply this option and described it as our reasoning > >> when writing, "Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that > >> motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between > >> our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly." > >> > >> >In the example that you used of smoking, > >> >what is the external force > >> > >> It may be any one of a number of forces which carry > >> "A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior" > >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force > >> > >> Watching someone light up still provokes me to do the > >> same, for example, so there's one external force to be > >> considered. Antecedent events such as a long history > >> of smoking could qualify as a valid weighting factor as > >> well. > >> > >> >where the desire to smoke begins > >> > >> After you stop, naturally, but a desire to start would > >> depend on that antecedent event I mentioned above. > >> Surely, if such an antecedent never existed, then the > >> desire to smoke, such as it is, would never arise within > >> me. > >> > >> >and where is the external force or internal force that allows > >> >you to resist the external force or internal force to smoke. > >> > >> The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It > >> cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, > >> is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by > >> resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and > >> antecedent events quickly." > >> > >> >In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can be utilized here. > >> >In that there is an external pressure and internal pressure and were > >> >they meet is the boundary between the two. Worded differently, your > >> >desired to smoke is met by the external knowledge of cancer and heart > >> >disease. Where these two things collide is the creation of the boundary > >> >between what you want and what you should do. > >> > >> And that boundary is what I refer to as our reasoning. It's > >> the loud voice of our reason that motivates us to put our > >> desires to one side and do what we believe is right, rather > >> than what would be expedient under the circumstances. > >> Though these external pressures or forces act upon us in > >> all directions and manifestations, it's our reasoning that > >> resolves the conflicts associated with them that ultimately > >> motivates our will to act. That being so, and because our > >> capacity for reason exists, our will cannot be free to act > >> outside of it, and that's why I conclude free will does not > >> exist. Rather, I tend to think that we are slaves to our > >> reason instead. > >> > >> >I did find a false dilemma in that there was an either or scenario. > >> > >> I'm sorry, but I did mention; > >> > >> "Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > >> we cannot have free will." > >> > >> Now, you may want to argue that since I've asserted > >> that that third alternative to dither doesn't exist in the > >> real World, I've posed a false dilemma, but that isn't > >> the case in my scenario because I did include it. I even > >> included a fourth; > >> > >> "I might act randomly and pick one object, but that > >> indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will > >> was the originator of that unintentional choice." > >> > >> >It is also possible that two opposing forces work in conjunction. > >> >It is also possible that two opposing forcing work in harmony. > >> > > >> >Resistance and its polar equivalent are balance in the centre with a > >> >boundary between the two. The desire to smoke (an internal force) is met > >> >by the knowledge of X (an external force) -- or vice versa. > >> > > >> >Interestingly, you have described a "will" to smoke, or a "will" to > >> >resist smoking as a force. I find the term energy is more useful and > >> >likely more accurate. I'm not sure though, how you chose the term > >> >"force" to describe an interest or desire in smoking to begin with. > >> > >> I'm sure you've used the expressions, "*force* of habit" > >> and "will *power*" before now, Ron. > > > >Actually, I use expressions like exercising will or control, or just > >plain old habit. > > Nevertheless, are we agreed that forces, whatever their > manifestation or unit, do exist and weigh upon us to act? No. We are not. In your example, I was asking what was the external force acting on any individual to light up a cigarette and smoke? And what is the external force when one choose not to light up. Based on your answer, you use the term force where I would use the term think, know or believe. For example, I believe based on the information at hand that smoking can cause cancer. As I result I make choices. I exercise my ability to act based on knowledge. You have redfined the process of what happens in the presence of information as a "force". > >I think I need some definition to understand your perspective of forces. > > For what end? Mutual understanding. As a staring point for a dicussion, it's difficult to have an open dialogue if we are choosing to use the language to describe different phenomenon in different ways. It's difficult for me to agree that X is a force if we have different meanings for the term force. I consider force to be of the physical world and as a result of this something that can be measured empirically. > >For example, when I have smoked, I am not necessarily directing forces > >or responding to them. I am controling or manipulating various part of > >my body through energy. Smoking is a label, like most things, that we > >use describe a series of actions and processes. The act of smoking is > >actually a series of smaller actions that are conglomerated into label, > >likely for efficiency and time management. > > > >When I have smoked, I am actually causing muscles to move, tendons to > >reacts, bones to bend at joins, causing movement towards an object > >grasping it, inhaling, exhaling, thinking, feeling, experiencing, etc. > >and then the requisite internal "actions" or uses of energy that are > >required to accomplish the task of "smoking". > > > >Learning a new task with a new label is difficult for this reason. The > >smaller steps that must be learned and repeated become part of the > >pattern and habit. Learning a new task usually feels awkward for this > >reason. One must 'master' each of the segments or smaller actions to > >achieve the larger action that is labeled "smoking". > > > >I think where we differ is that you are focused on "why" we do what we > >do where my response above seems to be "how" we do what we do. > > Our ability to smoke, and the movement of our muscles > and tendons while smoking aren't important to me while > contemplating the existence of free will. So you have disconnected our actions from our will to carry them out or to inhibit them. It must be a powerful feeling to act only onto the environment, a powerless feeling to act only in response to the environment versus the ability to act on and in response to the environment. > >Maybe my corresponding question is how to detect those forces and how do > >your respond to them. > > My desires and fears detect them, and my reasoning > resolves any conflicts associated with them, which > ultimately motivates my will to act. Your response lend support to my thinking above. Your reasoning (thoughts, beliefs, feelings) motives your actions. The "force" you feel then is internal not external. My thoughts, while other may attempt to measure them in external ways originate and reside within me. My writing of this response is an external verification a process that exists within me. My response is determined by two factors, that you responded and invited a response and that I had the desire to state my thinking. I didn't feel "forced" to respond to you. I took it as an invitation and made a choice to respond. Further, how you and I are using the term "force" can also be viewed or stated as a feeling or belief of obligation. The knowledge of smoking required, or obliges that I quit. I could state this a force, a result, a choice, or in any number of ways. The language allows for sometime confusing results and difficulties in communicating. It may well be that issue is not the existence or lack of existence of free will, but in how each of uses the language that creates differences -- a Tower of Babel. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > [..] > >>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the > >>>deaths of whole animals. > >> > >> No I don't, > > > >Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. > > heh heh heh. You meatarians tickle me something silly. The vegan makes the same logical error when they assume that they are avoiding responsibility for animal pain, suffering and death. The most significant cause of an animal's death is the person who directly causes it. The vegan is an insignificant player in the equation. A seal is killed for it's coat the shared responsibility looks something like this: 50% The hunter 10% The personal interests of the hunter (family, occupation, etc.) 10% The consumer who wants the product 10% The stores that sell it and their market forces 10% The traders and those associated with the industry 10% The buyers and those associated with the industry The numbers and percetanges can be juggled, but assume the vegan is the significant cause is a logical fallacy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > Sorry about not changing my name settings in my > earlier post. I frequent other groups under a different > name and failed to change it before responding here. > > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:22:43 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >In article >, > > Jon > wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:14:25 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >In article >, > >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:22:11 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >In article >, > >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:01:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >> >In article >, > >> >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:42:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >In article >, > >> >> >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >In article >, > >> >> >> >> >> > Derek > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then forced complicity > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >There is no such thing. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > >> >> >> >> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > >> >> >> >> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > >> >> >> >> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > >> >> >> >> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > >> >> >> >> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force > >> >> >> >> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of > >> >> >> >> >avoiding > >> >> >> >> >the > >> >> >> >> >situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a > >> >> >> >> >broken > >> >> >> >> >arm > >> >> >> >> >and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of > >> >> >> >> >matching > >> >> >> >> >your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my > >> >> >> >> >forcing > >> >> >> >> >to > >> >> >> >> >counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for > >> >> >> >> >help. > >> >> >> >> >I > >> >> >> >> >also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act > >> >> >> >> >of > >> >> >> >> >aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the > >> >> >> >> >option > >> >> >> >> >of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose > >> >> >> >> >with > >> >> >> >> >an > >> >> >> >> >upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> All that, for friendly half Nelson? A bit rough. Seriously > >> >> >> >> though, > >> >> >> >> despite any struggles, if Tyson decided you should stand with > >> >> >> >> your arm up your back, I'm sure he could force both of us to > >> >> >> >> comply and stand with our arms up our backs for however > >> >> >> >> long he wanted. In physical terms, then, forced complicity does > >> >> >> >> exist, but that's being a little unfair on my part because I'm > >> >> >> >> sure > >> >> >> >> you were actually referring to our choices, and whether we can > >> >> >> >> be forced to comply with someone else's choices regardless of > >> >> >> >> our own. Enter free will. Do we really have it, or could it be > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> we are compelled to act according to external influences and > >> >> >> >> antecedents? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I've often argued that the act of acting indicates free will > >> >> >> >> cannot > >> >> >> >> exist. I believe that if our will to act was truly free, set like > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> balance scale in equilibrium with no external forces or > >> >> >> >> antecedents > >> >> >> >> acting upon it, we would not act. We would remain at rest, and, > >> >> >> >> as I'm sure you're already aware, if something is at rest it > >> >> >> >> cannot > >> >> >> >> be moved unless an external force acts upon it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >You could have saved us both time, by simply stating this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> By stating what; what I wrote above your line, or what you > >> >> >> write below this one? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >If I were a ball, or a rock then, I might agree with you. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >While I can > >> >> >> >think of examples where a human acts in response to external > >> >> >> >forces, > >> >> >> >there are examples where humans act into their environment. > >> >> >> >For example, I just returned to my chair after making a cup of > >> >> >> >coffee. > >> >> >> >For your theory to hold true, we would need to identify what > >> >> >> >external > >> >> >> >force that causing me to respond. I listen to a particular type of > >> >> >> >music > >> >> >> >daily. Again, I cannot see the external force that I am responding > >> >> >> >to > >> >> >> >in > >> >> >> >this case either. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >This is at least causes me to wonder how you are using the term > >> >> >> >force. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The forces that motivate our will to act may be anything, > >> >> >> ranging from desires to fears and even time, but before > >> >> >> acting on those forces we reason with them to resolve > >> >> >> any conflicts between them so that we can act according > >> >> >> to own laws quickly. I might have the desire to smoke right > >> >> >> now, but carry a fear of cancer and heart disease, plus the > >> >> >> antecedent of going through a hard quit since last April. > >> >> >> Reasoning with these desires, fears and antecedents then > >> >> >> drives my will not to smoke. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If, on the other hand I'm found in a position of choosing > >> >> >> between two choices, and picking either carries the same > >> >> >> gain or loss, without the motivation of time I would dither > >> >> >> and not choose between either. Without a desire or fear > >> >> >> for either choice and no pressure to choose, I would not > >> >> >> act at all. I might act randomly and pick one object, but > >> >> >> that indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > >> >> >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will was > >> >> >> the originator of that unintentional choice. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that motivates our > >> >> >> will to act by resolving conflicts between our fears, desires > >> >> >> and antecedent events quickly. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > >> >> >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > >> >> >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > >> >> >> we cannot have free will. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For my assertion to gain any support, all that's required on > >> >> >> my part is to somehow prove that the act of acting proves > >> >> >> free will cannot exist. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1) If our will to act is in equilibrium and free from external > >> >> >> influences, time and antecedents, then we would not act. > >> >> >> 2) We act > >> >> >> therefore > >> >> >> 3) our will is not in equilibrium and free from external influences, > >> >> >> time and antecedents. > >> >> > > >> >> >There is a fourth option that will is an exchange or balancing of > >> >> >internal and external forces. > >> >> > >> >> I did imply this option and described it as our reasoning > >> >> when writing, "Reasoning, then, is the ultimate force that > >> >> motivates our will to act by resolving conflicts between > >> >> our fears, desires and antecedent events quickly." > >> >> > >> >> >In the example that you used of smoking, > >> >> >what is the external force > >> >> > >> >> It may be any one of a number of forces which carry > >> >> "A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior" > >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=force > >> >> > >> >> Watching someone light up still provokes me to do the > >> >> same, for example, so there's one external force to be > >> >> considered. Antecedent events such as a long history > >> >> of smoking could qualify as a valid weighting factor as > >> >> well. > >> >> > >> >> >where the desire to smoke begins > >> >> > >> >> After you stop, naturally, but a desire to start would > >> >> depend on that antecedent event I mentioned above. > >> >> Surely, if such an antecedent never existed, then the > >> >> desire to smoke, such as it is, would never arise within > >> >> me. > >> >> > >> >> >and where is the external force or internal force that allows > >> >> >you to resist the external force or internal force to smoke. > >> >> > >> >> The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It > >> >> cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, > >> >> is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by > >> >> resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and > >> >> antecedent events quickly." > >> >> > >> >> >In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can be utilized here. > >> >> >In that there is an external pressure and internal pressure and were > >> >> >they meet is the boundary between the two. Worded differently, your > >> >> >desired to smoke is met by the external knowledge of cancer and heart > >> >> >disease. Where these two things collide is the creation of the > >> >> >boundary > >> >> >between what you want and what you should do. > >> >> > >> >> And that boundary is what I refer to as our reasoning. It's > >> >> the loud voice of our reason that motivates us to put our > >> >> desires to one side and do what we believe is right, rather > >> >> than what would be expedient under the circumstances. > >> >> Though these external pressures or forces act upon us in > >> >> all directions and manifestations, it's our reasoning that > >> >> resolves the conflicts associated with them that ultimately > >> >> motivates our will to act. That being so, and because our > >> >> capacity for reason exists, our will cannot be free to act > >> >> outside of it, and that's why I conclude free will does not > >> >> exist. Rather, I tend to think that we are slaves to our > >> >> reason instead. > >> >> > >> >> >I did find a false dilemma in that there was an either or scenario. > >> >> > >> >> I'm sorry, but I did mention; > >> >> > >> >> "Note that I've not posed a false dilemma; a third alternative > >> >> not to act (dither) is included, and it's because this third > >> >> alternative doesn't exist in the real World that I conclude > >> >> we cannot have free will." > >> >> > >> >> Now, you may want to argue that since I've asserted > >> >> that that third alternative to dither doesn't exist in the > >> >> real World, I've posed a false dilemma, but that isn't > >> >> the case in my scenario because I did include it. I even > >> >> included a fourth; > >> >> > >> >> "I might act randomly and pick one object, but that > >> >> indeterminate choice wouldn't be of my own making, > >> >> so it wouldn't be accurate to assert that my free will > >> >> was the originator of that unintentional choice." > >> >> > >> >> >It is also possible that two opposing forces work in conjunction. > >> >> >It is also possible that two opposing forcing work in harmony. > >> >> > > >> >> >Resistance and its polar equivalent are balance in the centre with a > >> >> >boundary between the two. The desire to smoke (an internal force) is > >> >> >met > >> >> >by the knowledge of X (an external force) -- or vice versa. > >> >> > > >> >> >Interestingly, you have described a "will" to smoke, or a "will" to > >> >> >resist smoking as a force. I find the term energy is more useful and > >> >> >likely more accurate. I'm not sure though, how you chose the term > >> >> >"force" to describe an interest or desire in smoking to begin with. > >> >> > >> >> I'm sure you've used the expressions, "*force* of habit" > >> >> and "will *power*" before now, Ron. > >> > > >> >Actually, I use expressions like exercising will or control, or just > >> >plain old habit. > >> > >> Nevertheless, are we agreed that forces, whatever their > >> manifestation or unit, do exist and weigh upon us to act? > > > >No. We are not. > > Yet you earlier implied that such forces do exist by > applying an "external pressure", and that an "internal > pressure" (which I referred to as our reason) also > exists and marks a "boundary" when writing; > > "In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can > be utilized here. In that there is an external pressure > and internal pressure and were they meet is the > boundary between the two." > > >In your example, I was asking what was the external > >force acting on any individual to light up a cigarette and smoke? And > >what is the external force when one choose not to light up. Based on > >your answer, you use the term force where I would use the term think, > >know or believe. > > > >For example, I believe based on the information at hand that smoking can > >cause cancer. As I result I make choices. I exercise my ability to act > >based on knowledge. You have redfined the process of what happens in the > >presence of information as a "force". > > Is that any different to your use of the term "pressure"? > > Pressu > "The application of continuous *force* by one body on > another that it is touching. > > A compelling or constraining influence, such as a moral > *force*, on the mind or will. > > To force, as by overpowering influence or persuasion." > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pressure > > >> >I think I need some definition to understand your perspective of forces. > >> > >> For what end? > > > >Mutual understanding. As a staring point for a dicussion, it's difficult > >to have an open dialogue if we are choosing to use the language to > >describe different phenomenon in different ways. It's difficult for me > >to agree that X is a force if we have different meanings for the term > >force. I consider force to be of the physical world and as a result of > >this something that can be measured empirically. > > There are no SI units to the forces being discussed here. > > >> >For example, when I have smoked, I am not necessarily directing forces > >> >or responding to them. I am controling or manipulating various part of > >> >my body through energy. Smoking is a label, like most things, that we > >> >use describe a series of actions and processes. The act of smoking is > >> >actually a series of smaller actions that are conglomerated into label, > >> >likely for efficiency and time management. > >> > > >> >When I have smoked, I am actually causing muscles to move, tendons to > >> >reacts, bones to bend at joins, causing movement towards an object > >> >grasping it, inhaling, exhaling, thinking, feeling, experiencing, etc. > >> >and then the requisite internal "actions" or uses of energy that are > >> >required to accomplish the task of "smoking". > >> > > >> >Learning a new task with a new label is difficult for this reason. The > >> >smaller steps that must be learned and repeated become part of the > >> >pattern and habit. Learning a new task usually feels awkward for this > >> >reason. One must 'master' each of the segments or smaller actions to > >> >achieve the larger action that is labeled "smoking". > >> > > >> >I think where we differ is that you are focused on "why" we do what we > >> >do where my response above seems to be "how" we do what we do. > >> > >> Our ability to smoke, and the movement of our muscles > >> and tendons while smoking aren't important to me while > >> contemplating the existence of free will. > > > >So you have disconnected our actions from our will to carry them out or > >to inhibit them. > > No, I haven't done anything like that. > > >It must be a powerful feeling to act only onto the > >environment, a powerless feeling to act only in response to the > >environment versus the ability to act on and in response to the > >environment. > > > >> >Maybe my corresponding question is how to detect those forces and how do > >> >your respond to them. > >> > >> My desires and fears detect them, and my reasoning > >> resolves any conflicts associated with them, which > >> ultimately motivates my will to act. > > > >Your response lend support to my thinking above. Your reasoning > >(thoughts, beliefs, feelings) motives your actions. The "force" you feel > >then is internal not external. > > Of course; > "The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It > cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, > is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by > resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and > antecedent events quickly." I find this circular to a certain degree. The use of the term force to describe force is redundant. I would find the 'choice' or 'ability' "...to resist in ourselves...", a more accurate reflection of what we are discussing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > Yet you earlier implied that such forces do exist by > applying an "external pressure", and that an "internal > pressure" (which I referred to as our reason) also > exists and marks a "boundary" when writing; > > "In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can > be utilized here. In that there is an external pressure > and internal pressure and were they meet is the > boundary between the two." I was trying to use your language to describe the process, yet have in terms of language that more resembled what I am saying. My statements above can easily be written by converting the word "pressure" to "influence" or "belief". Perhaps it is "will" then that is need of a definition. I consider "will" the ability of any organism to recognize a need to maintain homeostasis and then to act in a means to achieve or disrupt it. Of course, there is another school of thought and in philosophy where will is linked to religion and exclusively the domain of humans. I consider animals to have will in that it can "register" in some way that something is absent or in abundance and then respond in the manner consistent to an attempt to accomplishing homeostasis, equilibrium or balance. The means that I consider "will" to be transmitted is internal and at the very base level electrochemical -- beliefs, thoughts and feelings being transmitted, created and recreated in that way. All life, no matter how simple, can respond to and act towards the environment. The common feature in all life is the electrochemical signature. At least in carbon based life forms, as if others existed. I can attribute my belief or the force externally or internally, or as a combination as bidirectional. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:40:46 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >In article >, Derek > > wrote: > > > >> Yet you earlier implied that such forces do exist by > >> applying an "external pressure", and that an "internal > >> pressure" (which I referred to as our reason) also > >> exists and marks a "boundary" when writing; > >> > >> "In one respect, the idea of Id, Ego and Superego can > >> be utilized here. In that there is an external pressure > >> and internal pressure and were they meet is the > >> boundary between the two." > > > >I was trying to use your language to describe the process > > And while doing so you asserted that "external pressures" > upon us exist. > > >, yet have in > >terms of language that more resembled what I am saying. > > > >My statements above can easily be written by converting the word > >"pressure" to "influence" or "belief". > > Or even "force", as I have. > > <unsnip> > Pressu > "A compelling or constraining influence, such as a moral > *force*, on the mind or will. > > To *force*, as by overpowering influence or persuasion." > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pressure > > >Perhaps it is "will" then that is need of a definition. > > Will: > "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses > or decides upon a course of action" > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=will Yes. You have a definition that can be considered consistent with words that are found in the dictionary. However, humans act. So do other animals and less advanced forms of life. A definition of will then, in my view must be broad enough to encompass how other life is able to act and respond in the environment. A virus act and a human acts. We choose to believe that the virus simply responds while we deliberate. If we both act, with and without deliberation then I consider this as an indication of an underlying process. To be a little closer in the example, a lemur "choice" or "will" to eat a piece of fruit requires very similar electrochemcial responses as does my thinking, deliberation and choice to engage in the same activity. Of course, having will would allow humans to keep the illusion that we are superior to life rather than find a clear explanation for the creation and expression of desire or will. A lemur eats a piece of fruit because it is hungry. I eat a piece of fruit because I am hungry. The choice to pick this piece of fruit versus that one are both demonstrations of choice or will that me or the lemur can exercise. Even if we state that hunger is a basic need and is only genetic or instinctual when a lemur selects a piece of fruit at the discrimination of other pieces of fruit, and I can and do the same things, another process is at work. The term will in and of itself is misleading in that will is a future projection of "is" or "am". I will eat when hungry. As well, an animal will eat when hungry. I think the religious perspective of Free Will is still deeply entrenched in our culture. > "The force to resist rests in ourselves as reasoning. It > cannot come from anywhere else. "Reasoning, then, > is the ultimate force that motivates our will to act by > resolving conflicts between our fears, desires and > antecedent events quickly." > > > I consider > >"will" the ability of any organism to recognize a need to maintain > >homeostasis and then to act in a means to achieve or disrupt it. Of > >course, there is another school of thought and in philosophy where will > >is linked to religion and exclusively the domain of humans. I consider > >animals to have will in that it can "register" in some way that > >something is absent or in abundance and then respond in the manner > >consistent to an attempt to accomplishing homeostasis, equilibrium or > >balance. The means that I consider "will" to be transmitted is internal > >and at the very base level electrochemical -- beliefs, thoughts and > >feelings being transmitted, created and recreated in that way. All life, > >no matter how simple, can respond to and act towards the environment. > >The common feature in all life is the electrochemical signature. At > >least in carbon based life forms, as if others existed. > > > >I can attribute my belief or the force externally or internally, or as a > >combination as bidirectional. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> You invite the insults through your blatant lies and ignorance. YOU
> made an absolute claim and are running from it. Your claim that you no > longer have the research, only the conclusions, leaves no doubt that > everything you say is horseshit. Nonsense. You're fully responsible for your insults. As to the rest, it's not horseshit. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> >>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > [..] > >>>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the >>>>deaths of whole animals. >>> >>> No I don't, >> >>Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. > > > heh heh heh. You meatarians There is no such word. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza <some...@ph.=ADcon> wrote: > >****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > [..] > >>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as res=ADponsible for the > >>>deaths of whole animals. > >> No I don't, > >Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. > heh heh heh. You meatarians tickle me something silly. The vegan makes the same logical error when they assume that=AD they are avoiding responsibility for animal pain, suffering and death=AD. The most significant cause of an animal's death is the perso=ADn who directly causes it. The vegan is an insignificant player in =ADthe equation. A seal is killed for it's coat the shared responsibility looks something like this: 50% The hunter 10% The personal interests of the hunter (family, occupati=ADon, etc.) 10% The consumer who wants the product 10% The stores that sell it and their market forces 10% The traders and those associated with the industry 10% The buyers and those associated with the industry The numbers and percetanges can be juggled, but assume the v=ADegan is the significant cause is a logical fallacy. You don't have the first ****ing clue what constitutes a logical fallacy. Stop using words you don't understand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
> >>There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there > >>isn't. > > Then forced complicity > There is no such thing. Then lets call it forced participation. Let's call you a clueless slut. > > I presented 2, homesteading and death. > > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow > > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading > > and hiring a farmer are not in most > > people's budget, > Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing > does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing. Not having the money for something turns that something into an impossibility choice-wise. Fallacy. Nobody said there was only one right and ethical alternative. You could simply starve to death. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Then lets call it forced participation.
> > Let's call you a clueless slut. Oooo, you don't like being wrong, do you? > Not having the money for something turns > that something into an impossibility > choice-wise. > > Fallacy. Nobody said there was only one right and ethical > alternative. You could simply starve to death. Uh, yeah, that's a good choice (eyes rolling). That's one of the stupidest things I've seen you type. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:42:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, > Derek > wrote: > >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >Mr Harrison wrote: >> >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad wrote: >> [..] >> >>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the >> >>>deaths of whole animals. >> >> >> >> No I don't, >> > >> >Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. >> >> heh heh heh. You meatarians tickle me something silly. > >The vegan makes the same logical error when they assume that they are >avoiding responsibility for animal pain, suffering and death. > >The most significant cause of an animal's death is the person who >directly causes it. The vegan is an insignificant player in the equation. > >A seal is killed for it's coat > >the shared responsibility looks something like this: > >50% The hunter >10% The personal interests of the hunter (family, occupation, etc.) >10% The consumer who wants the product >10% The stores that sell it and their market forces >10% The traders and those associated with the industry >10% The buyers and those associated with the industry > >The numbers and percetanges can be juggled, but assume the vegan is the >significant cause is a logical fallacy. Whatever is true of a vegan's responsibility for the deaths he contributes to, is true for the meat consumer as well. Both do contribute, regardless of whether or not we pretend they are responsible. The consumers as a group are responsible, and a person is responsible for joining the group, but as an individual is not responsible if the deaths would have occurred even had he/she never been born. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, the Gonad lied:
>Mr Harrison wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad lied: >>>****wit. Matheny clearly >>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls >>>apart. >> >> >> He does not, and he could not. > >He did. He can, and he did. Prove it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:42:15 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > >In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, the Gonad wrote: > >> >Mr Harrison wrote: > >> >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad wrote: > >> [..] > >> >>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible for the > >> >>>deaths of whole animals. > >> >> > >> >> No I don't, > >> > > >> >Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible. > >> > >> heh heh heh. You meatarians There is no word 'meatarian'. > > > >The vegan makes the same logical error when they assume that they are > >avoiding responsibility for animal pain, suffering and death. > > > >The most significant cause of an animal's death is the person who > >directly causes it. The vegan is an insignificant player in the equation. > > > >A seal is killed for it's coat > > > >the shared responsibility looks something like this: > > > >50% The hunter > >10% The personal interests of the hunter (family, occupation, etc.) > >10% The consumer who wants the product > >10% The stores that sell it and their market forces > >10% The traders and those associated with the industry > >10% The buyers and those associated with the industry > > > >The numbers and percetanges can be juggled, but assume the vegan is the > >significant cause is a logical fallacy. > > Whatever is true of a vegan's responsibility for the deaths he > contributes to, is true for the meat consumer as well. Both do > contribute, regardless of whether or not we pretend they are > responsible. There is no pretense. BOTH are responsible for the deaths of the animals that are killed in the course of producing the foods they eat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >> > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat >> >> > meat. >> >> >> >> Prove it. >> > >> > No. That's for each to decide on their own. >> ================ >> LOL Then you lied, eh killer. > > No lie. I'm just saying to each their own. =-===================== Then you above statement is a ly, killer. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? > >> Thanks again for proving you have done zero real research, > hypocrite... > > Research done, but sources and records not > kept. I only kept my conclusions. ===================== No, you had the conclusions, and did no research. You've proven that with the idiocy you have spewed here, hypocrite... > > > > > -- > 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 in message ... >> > I have years and years of research >> >> No you don't. You're lying. > > I'm not. I'm 42 and have been vegetarian > since I was 18. I have always had an > interest in nutrition and greedily absorbed > many books, medical news, and studies. > My personal repetoire of knowledge > is quite good. ======================= LOL You haven't shown that, fool. All you've proven here is how totally ignorant you are, and how dedicated to your religion you are. > >> and >> > personal experience. >> >> Personal anecdotes are not evidence. > > If it's my anecdote, it's evidence to me. > You're free to disagree of course. > >> Why would anyone agree with you when you shamelessly lie? > > No shame, no lie ================ Lys are all you have prosted, killer. > >>> No it doesn't. All you've provided is a list of items you ASSUME >> involve zero animal deaths with, again, zero evidence. > > Why would I assume there IS animal deaths > in wild picked and small garden grown foods? ======================= LOL Apples and oranges again, killer... Let's talk about *your* diet, eh hypocrite? > >> > > > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat >> > > > meat. >> > > >> > > Prove it. >> > >> > No. >> >> Yes, this is a forum for discussion and debate. You made an absolute >> claim and it's your responsibility to either support the claim or >> retract it. Anything else is unethical behavior. > > If I had known years ago, that I would be > debating this topic, then maybe I would > have kept records of sources. I didn't. > All I kept was my conclusions. ================== Lys.... > >> That's for each to decide on their own. >> >> False, by the very words YOU typed, it is an absolute claim requiring >> supporting evidence. > > Required of who? I don't have to. Just > like you don't have to believe or agree > with me. > >> So you freely admit you have no intention of supporting the claimsyou >> present. Thanks for the clarification. In case you haven't figured it >> out yet (you haven't, that would require more brain power than you >> possess on your best days), when you present something as fact rather >> than opinion, your only ethical alternative is to support the claim. >> You have demonstrated a pathetic lack of ethics and integrity. > > I don't care what you think of me, since you're > an insulting, assuming person. > >> > Are you Rudy's new name? >> >> No. > > > You're very similar. Insults and statements > about 'absolute claims', etc. ===================== And you're still an ignorant dogmatic killer. > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, ignorance and idiocy run amok... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >> >> > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat
> >> >> > meat. > >> >> > >> >> Prove it. > >> > > >> > No. That's for each to decide on their own. > >> ================ > >> LOL Then you lied, eh killer. > > > > No lie. I'm just saying to each their own. > =-===================== > Then you above statement is a ly, killer. Man, you really are this stupid, > aren't you? Where's the lie? What is it? > > Research done, but sources and records not > > kept. I only kept my conclusions. > ===================== > No, you had the conclusions, and did no research. You've proven that with > the idiocy you have spewed here, hypocrite... You've come to the false conclusion that I've done no research. -- 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 in message news  >> >> >> > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat >> >> >> > meat. >> >> >> >> >> >> Prove it. >> >> > >> >> > No. That's for each to decide on their own. >> >> ================ >> >> LOL Then you lied, eh killer. >> > >> > No lie. I'm just saying to each their own. >> =-===================== >> Then you above statement is a ly, killer. Man, you really are this > stupid, >> aren't you? > > Where's the lie? What is it? ======================= One way or another you lied fool. Too bad you're too stupid to see it. You made a categorical statement that "...it's just healthier to not eat meat..." You were called on it, and couldn't prove your idiocy. You then switched to the "...I'm just saying to each their own..." So, your statement above was a ly, or your tap dance was a ly. You decide, either way you're a proven liar, hypocrite. > >> > Research done, but sources and records not >> > kept. I only kept my conclusions. >> ===================== >> No, you had the conclusions, and did no research. You've proven that > with >> the idiocy you have spewed here, hypocrite... > > > You've come to the false conclusion that > I've done no research. ================== No, You have proven that you have done no research, fool. > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, ignorance and idiocy run amok... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > I'm not. I'm 42 and have been vegetarian
> > since I was 18. I have always had an > > interest in nutrition and greedily absorbed > > many books, medical news, and studies. > > My personal repetoire of knowledge > > is quite good. > ======================= > LOL You haven't shown that, fool. All you've proven here is how totally > ignorant you are, and how dedicated to your religion you are. Religion? I'm an atheist. What does that have to do with nutrition. > >>> No it doesn't. All you've provided is a list of items you ASSUME > >> involve zero animal deaths with, again, zero evidence. > > > > Why would I assume there IS animal deaths > > in wild picked and small garden grown foods? > ======================= > LOL Apples and oranges again, killer... Let's talk about *your* diet, eh > hypocrite? Where's the apples and oranges? > ===================== > And you're still an ignorant dogmatic killer. Yeah, sure, ok. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Where's the lie? What is it?
> ======================= > One way or another you lied fool. Too bad you're too stupid to see it. You > made a categorical statement that "...it's just healthier to not eat > meat..." > You were called on it, and couldn't prove your idiocy. You then switched to > the "...I'm just saying to each their own..." So, your statement above was > a ly, or your tap dance was a ly. You decide, either way you're a proven > liar, hypocrite. The belief that it's healthier to not eat meat, can coexist just fine with the belief of to each their own. If someone other than me feels it's healthy to eat meat, then that's their business even though I think it's wrong and unethical. > >> > Research done, but sources and records not > >> > kept. I only kept my conclusions. > >> ===================== > >> No, you had the conclusions, and did no research. You've proven that > > with > >> the idiocy you have spewed here, hypocrite... All you've proven is that you're a cranky troll. > > You've come to the false conclusion that > > I've done no research. > ================== > No, You have proven that you have done no research, fool. I don't need to prove it to you, as long as I know it. You're free to disagree all you like. -- 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 in message ... >> > I'm not. I'm 42 and have been vegetarian >> > since I was 18. I have always had an >> > interest in nutrition and greedily absorbed >> > many books, medical news, and studies. >> > My personal repetoire of knowledge >> > is quite good. >> ======================= >> LOL You haven't shown that, fool. All you've proven here is how > totally >> ignorant you are, and how dedicated to your religion you are. > > Religion? I'm an atheist. ============================ No, you're an ignorant vegan wannabe killer, spewing the religious dogma of the sect. What does that > have to do with nutrition. ================== Exactly, veganism is not about nutrition! > >> >>> No it doesn't. All you've provided is a list of items you ASSUME >> >> involve zero animal deaths with, again, zero evidence. >> > >> > Why would I assume there IS animal deaths >> > in wild picked and small garden grown foods? >> ======================= >> LOL Apples and oranges again, killer... Let's talk about *your* > diet, eh >> hypocrite? > > Where's the apples and oranges? ================ LOL Comparing foods that you don't eat to some mythical foods, as usual, killer! > >> ===================== >> And you're still an ignorant dogmatic killer. > > Yeah, sure, ok. =============== Glad you agree, hypocrite. > > > > > -- > 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 in message ... >> > Where's the lie? What is it? >> ======================= >> One way or another you lied fool. Too bad you're too stupid to see > it. You >> made a categorical statement that "...it's just healthier to not eat >> meat..." >> You were called on it, and couldn't prove your idiocy. You then > switched to >> the "...I'm just saying to each their own..." So, your statement > above was >> a ly, or your tap dance was a ly. You decide, either way you're a > proven >> liar, hypocrite. > > The belief that it's healthier to not eat > meat, can coexist just fine with the > belief of to each their own. ==================== No fool, that isn't what you said. You made a direct, categorical statement. You got called on your ignorance and couldn't support it. So you had to then change your tune to each their own. You lied either in the first statement, or the second, killer. If someone > other than me feels it's healthy to eat > meat, then that's their business even > though I think it's wrong and unethical. ====================== LOL Too bad you don't think killing animals for conveninece and entertainment to be unethical too, hypocrite. You really are just too stupid, fool. > >> >> > Research done, but sources and records not >> >> > kept. I only kept my conclusions. >> >> ===================== >> >> No, you had the conclusions, and did no research. You've proven > that >> > with >> >> the idiocy you have spewed here, hypocrite... > > All you've proven is that you're a cranky > troll. ================= And again you have proven that you don't even know the meaning of the word fool. > >> > You've come to the false conclusion that >> > I've done no research. >> ================== >> No, You have proven that you have done no research, fool. > > I don't need to prove it to you, as long > as I know it. You're free to disagree > all you like. > ========================== I don't have to, you have proven your lack of research, killer. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Religion? I'm an atheist.
> ============================ > No, you're an ignorant vegan wannabe killer, spewing the religious dogma of > the sect. Do I worship the Great Pumpkin? Do I get to go to midnight seed planting rituals? > What does that > > have to do with nutrition. > ================== > Exactly, veganism is not about nutrition! It is to me. > > Where's the apples and oranges? > ================ > LOL Comparing foods that you don't eat to some mythical foods, as usual, > killer! There are lots of personal gardens that grow 0 death foods all over North America and probably other countries too. No myth. -- 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 in message ... >> > Religion? I'm an atheist. >> ============================ >> No, you're an ignorant vegan wannabe killer, spewing the religious > dogma of >> the sect. > > Do I worship the Great Pumpkin? Do I get > to go to midnight seed planting rituals? > >> What does that >> > have to do with nutrition. >> ================== >> Exactly, veganism is not about nutrition! > > It is to me. ==================== Then again, you have no clue as to what a word means. No surprise there though, is there, killer? > >> > Where's the apples and oranges? >> ================ >> LOL Comparing foods that you don't eat to some mythical foods, as > usual, >> killer! > > There are lots of personal gardens that > grow 0 death foods all over North America > and probably other countries too. No myth. ==================== The myht is that *YOU* have anything to do with them fool. Apples and oranges, hypocrite. Still afraid to compare *your* diet I see, killer. > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > There are lots of personal gardens that
> > grow 0 death foods all over North America > > and probably other countries too. No myth. > ==================== > The myht is that *YOU* have anything to do with them fool. Apples and > oranges, hypocrite. Still afraid to compare *your* diet I see, killer. And what are you suggesting that I compare it to? -- 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 in message ... >> > There are lots of personal gardens that >> > grow 0 death foods all over North America >> > and probably other countries too. No myth. >> ==================== >> The myht is that *YOU* have anything to do with them fool. Apples and >> oranges, hypocrite. Still afraid to compare *your* diet I see, > killer. > > > And what are you suggesting that I > compare it to? ======================= LOL You've been told many times. Are you admitting you are too stupid to remember the posts? > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza, scholar, wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> >> >>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza, scholar, wrote: > > >>>>****wit. Matheny clearly >>>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls >>>>apart. >>> >>> >>> He does not, and he could not. >> >>He did. He can, and he did. > > > Prove it. Read the paper, ****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nonsense. You're fully responsible for your
insults. I never said I wasn't. Why did you never learn to read? As to the rest, it's not horseshit. It is horseshit. You have willingly given conclusive proof that you don't know how to do research. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Uh, yeah, that's a good choice (eyes rolling).
That's one of the stupidest things I've seen you type. There was nothing stupid about it. IF you believe it is wrong to kill animals for human convenience and IF you can't alter your lifestyle to avoid killing animals; then the only ethical alternative (by YOUR ethics) is for you to die. It's called logic, you aren't qualified to understand it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Uh, yeah, that's a good choice (eyes rolling).
> That's one of the stupidest things I've seen > you type. > > There was nothing stupid about it. IF you believe it is wrong to kill > animals for human convenience and IF you can't alter your lifestyle to > avoid killing animals; then the only ethical alternative (by YOUR > ethics) is for you to die. It's called logic, you aren't qualified to > understand it. It's not the only alternative according to my ethics. What on earth is the matter with you? I'm in a position of forced complicity regarding cds. Therefore I am not responsible for them. The farmer is. I am not willing to kill myself in order to stop this situation. That would be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Where's the logic in that? You are Rudy, aren't you. There can't be 2 people as stupid as you. By the way, since you showed such interest in the law the other day, it's illegal in many places to try and talk someone into suicide. And stupid. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Nonsense. You're fully responsible for your
> insults. > > I never said I wasn't. Why did you never learn to read? > > > As to the rest, it's not horseshit. > > It is horseshit. You have willingly given conclusive proof that you > don't know how to do research. Alright Kandy, show the conclusive proof. I'm assuming you did research? Where is it? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > And what are you suggesting that I
> > compare it to? > ======================= > LOL You've been told many times. Are you admitting you are too stupid to > remember the posts? I only remember you wanting to compare it to meals consisting of game only, and nothing else. Not very realistic, I hope. -- 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:
>>Uh, yeah, that's a good choice (eyes rolling). >>That's one of the stupidest things I've seen >>you type. >> >>There was nothing stupid about it. IF you believe it is wrong to kill >>animals for human convenience and IF you can't alter your lifestyle to >>avoid killing animals; then the only ethical alternative (by YOUR >>ethics) is for you to die. It's called logic, you aren't qualified to >>understand it. > > > It's not the only alternative according to my > ethics. Ethics is not simply a personal choice. > What on earth is the matter with you? > I'm in a position of forced complicity regarding > cds. You are not in any such position at all. You have numerous ways to opt out. You just don't WANT to do them. > Therefore I am not responsible for them. You are. The chain of causation is clear and well established. You don't WANT to be responsible for them, just as immature people *never* want to consider themselves responsible. It's too convenient always to portray yourself as the pawn of powerful impersonal forces. > The farmer is. You are as well. >I am not willing to kill myself > in order to stop this situation. That would > be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Where's the > logic in that? You are Rudy, aren't you. No. I'm Rudy. > > By the way, since you showed such > interest in the law the other day, it's > illegal in many places to try and talk > someone into suicide. I doubt that. I doubt you know anything more about the law than laws about marijuana. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
| Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
| dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
| Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
| Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
