 |
|
| 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 Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> .. . >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? He can't present any decent >> >> >> examples of his opposition to "AR". >> >> >> Dutch can't either. But if you can, please >> >> >> do. >> >> > >> >> >I think if they were really ARAs, then >> >> >they would not be meat eaters, >> >> >> >> And what in the world could possibly have >> >> made you believe they are meat eaters? If >> >> they are what I believe them to be, two of >> >> the things they would *have* to lie about a >> >> >> >> 1. that they are "ARAs" >> >> 2. that they consume animal products >> >> >> >> We know for a fact that they lie about some >> >> things, so what would make you think they >> >> would not lie about what is most important >> >> for them to lie about? >> > >> >They really don't sound ARAish to >> >me. They just give the wrong >> >impression sometimes with the >> >way they word stuff. >> >> I have only reason to believe they are "ARAs", >> and no reason to believe they are not. And it has >> been that way for years. If you think you can >> provide reason to believe they're not "ARAs", >> then just do it. But they can't, so don't feel too >> bad if you can't either...you should feel bad about >> being fooled by them though, imo. >> >> >As far as >> >consuming animal products, I >> >think they do, >> >> I don't. LOL. Why would you? > >If they were really ARAs they >wouldn't be eating meat, and >if not eating meat, then they >would have no reason to lie >and say they do eat meat. They have MUCH reason to lie about it. >Since they do say they eat >meat, I believe them on that >one. I don't. >> >although Dutch, >> >I think, said he was a veg*n for >> >a number of years. I don't know >> >any of the above for sure. >> >> Dutch admitted to being a veg*n for >> a while when he got here, and also >> began referring to himself as apostate >> as he pretended to attack other veg*ns. >> Dishonesty and betrayal type behavior >> is what they are about, which is why >> they do what they do. >> >> Dutch also admitted to being an "ARA", >> btw: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: "Dutch" > >> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700 >> Message-ID: > >> >> Rights for animals exist because human rights >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for >> animals would not exist." >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: "Dutch" > >> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800 >> Message-ID: > >> >> My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: "Dutch" > >> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800 >> Message-ID: > >> >> I am an animal rights believer. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >I would want to see the full thread >to see it in context (especially the >last one), Then look it up. In case you're not familiar with it, go to: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and you'll most likely (I hope) be able to figure out what to do. If not let me know, so we can get you on it so you know how to do it from then on. I hope you will notice that I've been honest about how to find the info you menioned, and have made it available the entire time. Also that I've been honest with a bunch of dishonest lowlife scum "ARAs" about the fact that I used to raise game chickens, when there was never any real need for me to tell the sorry asses about it to begin with, and they sure as hell could never have figured it out on their own. That probably doesn't mean much to you, but is shows that the truth and honesty mean something to me whether you can see it or not. >but it is possible that >he believes in some animal >rights but not to the extent of >being ARA. Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to decent AW for livestock instead of their elimination, is an "ARA" to me. >> >Only >> >they really know the truth about >> >themselves. They definitely >> >don't claim to be ARAs or to >> >not consume animal products. >> >> As I pointed out, those are the most >> important things for them to lie about, >> so of course they do lie about them. > >But there would be no >advantage to lying about >those things. If they were >vegans and/or ARAs >themselves, why would >they speak out against >it? No one has presented examples of it. >> >> >since >> >> >within the AR movement, that's an >> >> >essential, even when the rest is >> >> >debated. Sometimes Jon's posts >> >> >are worded in such a manner that it >> >> >appears to be his beliefs, but other >> >> >times he makes it a bit more clear >> >> >that it's what he thinks others >> >> >believe. >> >> >> >> Then you need to do what they have so >> >> far been unable to do, which is explain why >> >> you believe the Gonad uses arguments that >> >> he doesn't agree with. So far I only have >> >> reason to believe he very much agrees with >> >> them, and simply lies about it like he does >> >> some many other things. >> > >> >I think he tends to try and set >> >people up by insisting that their >> >beliefs mean things that are not >> >true. He's hoping to set them >> >up for a fall. He will claim that >> >they are not doing enough >> >according to (what he thinks >> >is) their beliefs. >> >> Have you noticed that so far no one--including >> you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses >> arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, >> and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree >> with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then >> he would support AW over "AR", imo. > >Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, >Dutch and Rick go on about their >choice of meats being the low cd >ones? I don't believe anyone can post an example of the Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about that. >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW >> over "AR": >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Rudy Canoza > >> Message-ID: . net> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT >> >> dh wrote: >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >He writes that way when he's >telling you what HE thinks that >YOU believe, HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock over their elimination. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:14:53 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:12:59 -0500, wrote: >>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:22 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, wrote: >> >>>> I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with >>> >>>He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he >>>appears to contradict himself and promote something >>>he flatly rejects. >> >> That's a lie. He admittedly believes it's evil to kill animals: >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Rudy Canoza > >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:20 GMT >> >>You consider that it "got to experience life" to be >>some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >That quote refers to you and your argument. It says >nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything. That's a lie. >Note that the first two words in that sentence is "You >consider", Harrison. > >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Rudy Canoza > >>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan >>Subject: Skunky ****es all over the trolls >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT >> >>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>their deaths >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >You've taken that half-quote completely out of context >and removed all the qualifiers to make it appear that >Jon feels it necessary to mitigate the deaths of the >animals he eats. Only YOU do that, Harrison. Here's >the complete quote That's a lie. >including the start of his >sentence which you carved off. > > [I'll put it in my own words - which you have already > seen, many times, and acknowledged - just one more > time. Before doing so, ****wit, I want to make clear > that we both know you are only trying to waste my time. > > The reason "giving them life" doesn't mitigate the > potential wrongness is because "giving them life" has > no moral content. It has no moral content because: > > a) the animals weren't bred in order to give them the > "chance" to "get to experience life" > b) causing them to live is not doing *them* a good deed.] > Rapeseed Canola 29 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/4om32 > >You're just making things even worse for yourself, stupid. > >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Wilson Woods > > >That email address rings a bell. > >>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology >>Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good >> questions? >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT >> >>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's >>your answer. >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of >>changing it in some other way: > >Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that >you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try >it again despite that. Here's the quote in full and a link to >it, showing that you are indeed a very bad liar, Harrison. > >[start - Harrison] > > I've asked you "ARAs" > > No. > > > more than once for whom or what it would > > be better not to raise animals to eat. > > They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense > - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they > don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's > your answer.] > Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu > >Note that the begining of your misquote is missing. >Archives show that Jon started by declaring, "They >(the ARAs you referred to) answer", not what he >would answer, liar Harrison. He agrees with them, as he has proven many times besides this example. In this example I asked for whom or what it would be better not to raise the animals, and he gave what he considers to be the answer--even though it didn't even address the question--and specifically said that it's the answer, obviously because he agrees with it. He even explained in some detail why he does NOT want people to contribute to decent AW over "AR": __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > Message-ID: . net> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT dh wrote: > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison . . . 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:14:53 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:12:59 -0500, wrote: >>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:22 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, wrote: >> >>>> I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with >>> >>>He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he >>>appears to contradict himself and promote something >>>he flatly rejects. >> >> That's a lie. He admittedly believes it's evil to kill animals: >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Rudy Canoza > >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:20 GMT >> >>You consider that it "got to experience life" to be >>some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >That quote refers to you and your argument. It says >nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything. That's a lie. >Note that the first two words in that sentence is "You >consider", Harrison. > >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Rudy Canoza > >>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan >>Subject: Skunky ****es all over the trolls >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT >> >>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>their deaths >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >You've taken that half-quote completely out of context >and removed all the qualifiers to make it appear that >Jon feels it necessary to mitigate the deaths of the >animals he eats. Only YOU do that, Harrison. Here's >the complete quote That's a lie. >including the start of his >sentence which you carved off. > > [I'll put it in my own words - which you have already > seen, many times, and acknowledged - just one more > time. Before doing so, ****wit, I want to make clear > that we both know you are only trying to waste my time. > > The reason "giving them life" doesn't mitigate the > potential wrongness is because "giving them life" has > no moral content. It has no moral content because: > > a) the animals weren't bred in order to give them the > "chance" to "get to experience life" > b) causing them to live is not doing *them* a good deed.] > Rapeseed Canola 29 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/4om32 > >You're just making things even worse for yourself, stupid. > >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: Wilson Woods > > >That email address rings a bell. > >>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology >>Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good >> questions? >>Message-ID: et> >>Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT >> >>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's >>your answer. >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of >>changing it in some other way: > >Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that >you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try >it again despite that. Here's the quote in full and a link to >it, showing that you are indeed a very bad liar, Harrison. > >[start - Harrison] > > I've asked you "ARAs" > > No. > > > more than once for whom or what it would > > be better not to raise animals to eat. > > They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense > - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they > don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's > your answer.] > Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu > >Note that the begining of your misquote is missing. >Archives show that Jon started by declaring, "They >(the ARAs you referred to) answer", not what he >would answer, liar Harrison. He agrees with them, as he has proven many times besides this example. In this example I asked for whom or what it would be better not to raise the animals, and he gave what he considers to be the answer--even though it didn't even address the question--and specifically said that it's the answer, obviously because he agrees with it. He even explained in some detail why he does NOT want people to contribute to decent AW over "AR": __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > Message-ID: . net> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT dh wrote: > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison . . . 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>No. I don't make any claim to read minds. Go back to > >>>>>>my round world example. It is a PERFECT illustration > >>>>>>of the point. If you claim to believe the world is > >>>>>>round, then you necessarily MUST believe that one > >>>>>>cannot fall off the edge of the world - because the > >>>>>>world doesn't have edges if it's round. If you > >>>>>>subsequently claim, "No, I believe it IS possible to > >>>>>>fall off the edge of the world", then only two > >>>>>>conclusions are possible: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>1. you lied when you said you believe the world is round > >>>>>>2. you didn't lie, but you do believe you can fall off > >>>>>> the edge, and you are therefore insane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Your choice. > >>>> > >>>>So which is it? > >>> > >>> > >>>Are you asking me if I believe > >>>that the world is round? > >> > >>I'm asking if you were lying about your earlier > >>beliefs, or if you're insane. > > > > > > I'm not lying or insane. > > NECESSARILY one or the other. Not necessarily. > > Which of our > > arguments do you have in mind > > when you show your examples? > > Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it > is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you > bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY > participation in processes that lead to animal death. I think now that cds are the farmer's responsibility. If you don't like that, tough. I have no control over cds. It's called forced complicity. Just like someone needing to ride in a bus and only having the pollution causing ones available. It's not their fault that there are no solar powered, or whatever, buses. > >>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a > >>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to > >>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS > >>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" > >>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Morality is a very personlized > >>>>>thing. > >>>> > >>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, > >>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and > >>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to > >>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even > >>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it > >>>>"may be" moral for someone else. > >>> > >>> > >>>I don't think child abuse is moral. > >>>It is very wrong. > >> > >>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is > >>very bad. > >> > >>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and > >>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. > > > > > > We'll never agree on my use > > of the words wrong and bad. > > Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > healthy adults have moved beyond. You're just all ****y because I refuse to do what you're telling me to do. My 'crime' of bad grammar is a victimless one, and I should think quite low in priority of things to complain about. > >>> > >>>>Morality is NOT personal. Something either is wrong, > >>>>or it isn't, and your "personal take" is irrelevant. > >>>> > >>>>Get that ****witted idea out of your head NOW. > >>> > >>> > >>>Get used to the idea that some > >>>people might believe differently > >>>than you. > >> > >>This is not a matter of belief. Morality is not > >>personal, no matter what your ****witted stupid beliefs > >>are. > > > > > > We disagree on that. > > You are incorrect. > > > >>>>>People frequently have > >>>>>different morals than each > >>>>>other. > >>>> > >>>>The morals they have are NOT the same as what IS moral. > >>>> You have the morals of a cockroach, but that doesn't > >>>>change the fact that sodomizing children with a > >>>>broomhandle simply IS wrong and immoral. > >>> > >>> > >>>I don't disagree that it's wrong > >>>and immoral. > >> > >>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and > >>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say > >>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. > > > > > > That's odd, > > No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > development (which is why you're single and childless) > would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. You're still trying aren't you? > >>> > >>>>>However, most would > >>>>>agree that your fave example > >>>>>is very wrong/bad. > >>>> > >>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. > >>>> > >>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of > >>>>your fat head, too. > >>> > >>> > >>>I use them interchangably. > >> > >>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. > >>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the > >>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. > >> > >>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're > >>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used > >>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of > >>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. > > > > > > A little hung up on > > You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. Oink oink (fusspot) > > >>>>>>>>You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss > >>>>>>>>of me!" attitude... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>No, I save that one for when you're > >>>>>>>trying to tell me what I think or > >>>>>>>should think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I have never attempted to tell you either. I've told > >>>>>>you what you MUST believe or think if you are telling > >>>>>>the truth when you say you believe or think something > >>>>>>else. I am telling you what the necessary implications > >>>>>>of your prior statements of belief are. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>You are telling me what YOU think > >>>>>I must believe, > >>>> > >>>>No, I am telling you additional beliefs that are > >>>>logically implied by your prior beliefs. There is no > >>>>choice in the matter: if you believe the world is > >>>>round, you MUST believe that one cannot fall of the > >>>>edge of it. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's not a good comparison > >>>to our debates, which weren't > >>>so cut and dry. > >> > >>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", > >>you illiterate shit.) > > > > > > I have to say, it's amusing to see > > you get so worked up over things. > > You are an illiterate shit. You are funny when you're mad. Now you're hoping that I'm illiterate. Another lie/insult. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Quality of life is a big thing > >>>>>>>ethically speaking. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Mine and a lot of other people's > >>>>>too. Don't you agree with it? > >>>> > >>>>Popular agreement with it doesn't change whether it is > >>>>or isn't. > >>> > >>> > >>>No, but I'm wondering if you > >>>would agree. > >> > >>I indicated long ago I do. Typically, you weren't > >>paying attention. > > > > > > Ok, just asking. I don't have a > > perfect memory of everything > > everyone says here. > > You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's > the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect > the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is > that you forgot. Then why aren't I making it now that you reminded me? Oh yeah, that's the pot too, right? > >>>>>>>>>If so, that sucks, > >>>>>>>>>both for being a lie and for meaning > >>>>>>>>>that he doesn't consider quality.My > >>>>>>>>>opinion of Jon hasn't changed. > >>>>>>>>>Despite his lack of lying this time, > >>>>>>>>>and the effort put into searching out > >>>>>>>>>quotes, he still thinks I'm a **** > >>>>>>>>>etc, so I basically think he's an > >>>>>>>>>asshole. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You don't really mean that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You don't. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Fraid so. > >>>> > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> > >>>It's true. > >> > >>Nope. > > > > > > I do mean that. > > Nope. Why do you insist on this. It's so obvious a lie that I wonder what on earth is in that head of yours. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> > wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> .. . > >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why? He can't present any decent > >> >> >> examples of his opposition to "AR". > >> >> >> Dutch can't either. But if you can, please > >> >> >> do. > >> >> > > >> >> >I think if they were really ARAs, then > >> >> >they would not be meat eaters, > >> >> > >> >> And what in the world could possibly have > >> >> made you believe they are meat eaters? If > >> >> they are what I believe them to be, two of > >> >> the things they would *have* to lie about a > >> >> > >> >> 1. that they are "ARAs" > >> >> 2. that they consume animal products > >> >> > >> >> We know for a fact that they lie about some > >> >> things, so what would make you think they > >> >> would not lie about what is most important > >> >> for them to lie about? > >> > > >> >They really don't sound ARAish to > >> >me. They just give the wrong > >> >impression sometimes with the > >> >way they word stuff. > >> > >> I have only reason to believe they are "ARAs", > >> and no reason to believe they are not. And it has > >> been that way for years. If you think you can > >> provide reason to believe they're not "ARAs", > >> then just do it. But they can't, so don't feel too > >> bad if you can't either...you should feel bad about > >> being fooled by them though, imo. > >> > >> >As far as > >> >consuming animal products, I > >> >think they do, > >> > >> I don't. LOL. Why would you? > > > >If they were really ARAs they > >wouldn't be eating meat, and > >if not eating meat, then they > >would have no reason to lie > >and say they do eat meat. > > They have MUCH reason to lie about it. What reasons? If they were really ARAs, then the only reason I can guess at is that they on purpose want to make their opposition look like assholes. Since I really think they believe some of the more serious stuff they write, I don't think that's the case. > >Since they do say they eat > >meat, I believe them on that > >one. > > I don't. > > >> >although Dutch, > >> >I think, said he was a veg*n for > >> >a number of years. I don't know > >> >any of the above for sure. > >> > >> Dutch admitted to being a veg*n for > >> a while when he got here, and also > >> began referring to himself as apostate > >> as he pretended to attack other veg*ns. > >> Dishonesty and betrayal type behavior > >> is what they are about, which is why > >> they do what they do. > >> > >> Dutch also admitted to being an "ARA", > >> btw: > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> Rights for animals exist because human rights > >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for > >> animals would not exist." > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> I am an animal rights believer. > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > > > >I would want to see the full thread > >to see it in context (especially the > >last one), > > Then look it up. In case you're not familiar > with it, go to: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > > and you'll most likely (I hope) be able > to figure out what to do. If not let me > know, so we can get you on it so you > know how to do it from then on. > > I hope you will notice that I've been > honest about how to find the info you > menioned, and have made it available > the entire time. Also that I've been honest > with a bunch of dishonest lowlife scum > "ARAs" about the fact that I used to raise > game chickens, when there was never > any real need for me to tell the sorry asses > about it to begin with, and they sure as > hell could never have figured it out on > their own. That probably doesn't mean > much to you, but is shows that the truth > and honesty mean something to me > whether you can see it or not. The thing I really hope you're honest about is believing in animal welfare. However, even if you do, there are areas in which we disagree regarding which situations mean a good life or not. > >but it is possible that > >he believes in some animal > >rights but not to the extent of > >being ARA. > > Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion > that people deliberately contribute to > decent AW for livestock instead of their > elimination, is an "ARA" to me. I haven't seen them actually oppose decent AW. In fact for a while they were all going on ad nauseum about the better of the meats, aw-wise, referring to the low cds of certain meats. While I'm against the id at the end (intentional death), I can see that they are not since they do eat meat. A real ARA would I imagine be against the id. Vegans are not needed to be convinced into eating meat to save the animals. There are more than enough meat eaters already that the few better farms wouldn't be able to supply them all. That leaves the factory farms which should not exist, so if anything, there should be even more people giving up meat, so at least only the better farms remain. > >> >Only > >> >they really know the truth about > >> >themselves. They definitely > >> >don't claim to be ARAs or to > >> >not consume animal products. > >> > >> As I pointed out, those are the most > >> important things for them to lie about, > >> so of course they do lie about them. > > > >But there would be no > >advantage to lying about > >those things. If they were > >vegans and/or ARAs > >themselves, why would > >they speak out against > >it? > > No one has presented examples of it. They quite openly say they are not against the raising of animals for meat. They also quite openly say they are not ARAs. > >> >> >since > >> >> >within the AR movement, that's an > >> >> >essential, even when the rest is > >> >> >debated. Sometimes Jon's posts > >> >> >are worded in such a manner that it > >> >> >appears to be his beliefs, but other > >> >> >times he makes it a bit more clear > >> >> >that it's what he thinks others > >> >> >believe. > >> >> > >> >> Then you need to do what they have so > >> >> far been unable to do, which is explain why > >> >> you believe the Gonad uses arguments that > >> >> he doesn't agree with. So far I only have > >> >> reason to believe he very much agrees with > >> >> them, and simply lies about it like he does > >> >> some many other things. > >> > > >> >I think he tends to try and set > >> >people up by insisting that their > >> >beliefs mean things that are not > >> >true. He's hoping to set them > >> >up for a fall. He will claim that > >> >they are not doing enough > >> >according to (what he thinks > >> >is) their beliefs. > >> > >> Have you noticed that so far no one--including > >> you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses > >> arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, > >> and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree > >> with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then > >> he would support AW over "AR", imo. > > > >Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, > >Dutch and Rick go on about their > >choice of meats being the low cd > >ones? > > I don't believe anyone can post an example of the > Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. > It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about > everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about > that. > > >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT > >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW > >> over "AR": > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> Message-ID: . net> > >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >> > >> dh wrote: > >> > >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > >> > >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . > >> > >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > >> > >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > > > >He writes that way when he's > >telling you what HE thinks that > >YOU believe, > > HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! > > What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? > Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The > Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly > why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest > *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want > me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock > over their elimination. I've received no suck-up emails. Our friend the gonad is still an asshole. I'm not lying about his beliefs, as far as I know. Even though it kind of looks like he's adamantly making claims, he's really insisting that it's what you must believe. He is often wrong in this. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> > wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> .. . > >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I don't believe Jon to be an ARA > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why? He can't present any decent > >> >> >> examples of his opposition to "AR". > >> >> >> Dutch can't either. But if you can, please > >> >> >> do. > >> >> > > >> >> >I think if they were really ARAs, then > >> >> >they would not be meat eaters, > >> >> > >> >> And what in the world could possibly have > >> >> made you believe they are meat eaters? If > >> >> they are what I believe them to be, two of > >> >> the things they would *have* to lie about a > >> >> > >> >> 1. that they are "ARAs" > >> >> 2. that they consume animal products > >> >> > >> >> We know for a fact that they lie about some > >> >> things, so what would make you think they > >> >> would not lie about what is most important > >> >> for them to lie about? > >> > > >> >They really don't sound ARAish to > >> >me. They just give the wrong > >> >impression sometimes with the > >> >way they word stuff. > >> > >> I have only reason to believe they are "ARAs", > >> and no reason to believe they are not. And it has > >> been that way for years. If you think you can > >> provide reason to believe they're not "ARAs", > >> then just do it. But they can't, so don't feel too > >> bad if you can't either...you should feel bad about > >> being fooled by them though, imo. > >> > >> >As far as > >> >consuming animal products, I > >> >think they do, > >> > >> I don't. LOL. Why would you? > > > >If they were really ARAs they > >wouldn't be eating meat, and > >if not eating meat, then they > >would have no reason to lie > >and say they do eat meat. > > They have MUCH reason to lie about it. What reasons? If they were really ARAs, then the only reason I can guess at is that they on purpose want to make their opposition look like assholes. Since I really think they believe some of the more serious stuff they write, I don't think that's the case. > >Since they do say they eat > >meat, I believe them on that > >one. > > I don't. > > >> >although Dutch, > >> >I think, said he was a veg*n for > >> >a number of years. I don't know > >> >any of the above for sure. > >> > >> Dutch admitted to being a veg*n for > >> a while when he got here, and also > >> began referring to himself as apostate > >> as he pretended to attack other veg*ns. > >> Dishonesty and betrayal type behavior > >> is what they are about, which is why > >> they do what they do. > >> > >> Dutch also admitted to being an "ARA", > >> btw: > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> Rights for animals exist because human rights > >> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for > >> animals would not exist." > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: "Dutch" > > >> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800 > >> Message-ID: > > >> > >> I am an animal rights believer. > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > > > >I would want to see the full thread > >to see it in context (especially the > >last one), > > Then look it up. In case you're not familiar > with it, go to: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > > and you'll most likely (I hope) be able > to figure out what to do. If not let me > know, so we can get you on it so you > know how to do it from then on. > > I hope you will notice that I've been > honest about how to find the info you > menioned, and have made it available > the entire time. Also that I've been honest > with a bunch of dishonest lowlife scum > "ARAs" about the fact that I used to raise > game chickens, when there was never > any real need for me to tell the sorry asses > about it to begin with, and they sure as > hell could never have figured it out on > their own. That probably doesn't mean > much to you, but is shows that the truth > and honesty mean something to me > whether you can see it or not. The thing I really hope you're honest about is believing in animal welfare. However, even if you do, there are areas in which we disagree regarding which situations mean a good life or not. > >but it is possible that > >he believes in some animal > >rights but not to the extent of > >being ARA. > > Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion > that people deliberately contribute to > decent AW for livestock instead of their > elimination, is an "ARA" to me. I haven't seen them actually oppose decent AW. In fact for a while they were all going on ad nauseum about the better of the meats, aw-wise, referring to the low cds of certain meats. While I'm against the id at the end (intentional death), I can see that they are not since they do eat meat. A real ARA would I imagine be against the id. Vegans are not needed to be convinced into eating meat to save the animals. There are more than enough meat eaters already that the few better farms wouldn't be able to supply them all. That leaves the factory farms which should not exist, so if anything, there should be even more people giving up meat, so at least only the better farms remain. > >> >Only > >> >they really know the truth about > >> >themselves. They definitely > >> >don't claim to be ARAs or to > >> >not consume animal products. > >> > >> As I pointed out, those are the most > >> important things for them to lie about, > >> so of course they do lie about them. > > > >But there would be no > >advantage to lying about > >those things. If they were > >vegans and/or ARAs > >themselves, why would > >they speak out against > >it? > > No one has presented examples of it. They quite openly say they are not against the raising of animals for meat. They also quite openly say they are not ARAs. > >> >> >since > >> >> >within the AR movement, that's an > >> >> >essential, even when the rest is > >> >> >debated. Sometimes Jon's posts > >> >> >are worded in such a manner that it > >> >> >appears to be his beliefs, but other > >> >> >times he makes it a bit more clear > >> >> >that it's what he thinks others > >> >> >believe. > >> >> > >> >> Then you need to do what they have so > >> >> far been unable to do, which is explain why > >> >> you believe the Gonad uses arguments that > >> >> he doesn't agree with. So far I only have > >> >> reason to believe he very much agrees with > >> >> them, and simply lies about it like he does > >> >> some many other things. > >> > > >> >I think he tends to try and set > >> >people up by insisting that their > >> >beliefs mean things that are not > >> >true. He's hoping to set them > >> >up for a fall. He will claim that > >> >they are not doing enough > >> >according to (what he thinks > >> >is) their beliefs. > >> > >> Have you noticed that so far no one--including > >> you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses > >> arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, > >> and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree > >> with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then > >> he would support AW over "AR", imo. > > > >Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, > >Dutch and Rick go on about their > >choice of meats being the low cd > >ones? > > I don't believe anyone can post an example of the > Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. > It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about > everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about > that. > > >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT > >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW > >> over "AR": > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> Message-ID: . net> > >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >> > >> dh wrote: > >> > >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > >> > >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . > >> > >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > >> > >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > > > >He writes that way when he's > >telling you what HE thinks that > >YOU believe, > > HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! > > What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? > Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The > Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly > why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest > *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want > me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock > over their elimination. I've received no suck-up emails. Our friend the gonad is still an asshole. I'm not lying about his beliefs, as far as I know. Even though it kind of looks like he's adamantly making claims, he's really insisting that it's what you must believe. He is often wrong in this. -- 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: > > Not necessarily. I read the answer, but I still don't get it because I don't understand . mk5000 "Nick takes his ring off when he sleeps. He just forgot to put it back on"--Nick Lachey's rep |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:57:45 -0500, wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:14:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:12:59 -0500, wrote: >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:22 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, wrote: >>> >>>>> I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >>>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with >>>> >>>>He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he >>>>appears to contradict himself and promote something >>>>he flatly rejects. >>> >>> That's a lie. He admittedly believes it's evil to kill animals: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:20 GMT >>> >>>You consider that it "got to experience life" to be >>>some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>That quote refers to you and your argument. It says >>nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything. > > That's a lie. Note that the first two words in that sentence is "You consider", Harrison. >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan >>>Subject: Skunky ****es all over the trolls >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT >>> >>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>>their deaths >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>You've taken that half-quote completely out of context >>and removed all the qualifiers to make it appear that >>Jon feels it necessary to mitigate the deaths of the >>animals he eats. Only YOU do that, Harrison. Here's >>the complete quote > > That's a lie. No. Read the complete quote you ignored below this line. >> [I'll put it in my own words - which you have already >> seen, many times, and acknowledged - just one more >> time. Before doing so, ****wit, I want to make clear >> that we both know you are only trying to waste my time. >> >> The reason "giving them life" doesn't mitigate the >> potential wrongness is because "giving them life" has >> no moral content. It has no moral content because: >> >> a) the animals weren't bred in order to give them the >> "chance" to "get to experience life" >> b) causing them to live is not doing *them* a good deed.] >> Rapeseed Canola 29 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/4om32 >> >>You're just making things even worse for yourself, stupid. As we can plainly see, liar Harrison, you carved off the beginning of Jon's sentence and intentionally misquoted him. >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Wilson Woods > >> >>That email address rings a bell. >> >>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology >>>Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good >>> questions? >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT >>> >>>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >>>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's >>>your answer. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of >>>changing it in some other way: >> >>Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that >>you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try >>it again despite that. Here's the quote in full and a link to >>it, showing that you are indeed a very bad liar, Harrison. >> >>[start - Harrison] >> > I've asked you "ARAs" >> >> No. >> >> > more than once for whom or what it would >> > be better not to raise animals to eat. >> >> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's >> your answer.] >> Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu >> >>Note that the begining of your misquote is missing. >>Archives show that Jon started by declaring, "They >>(the ARAs you referred to) answer", not what he >>would answer, liar Harrison. > > He agrees with them No, he doesn't, and that besides the point right now while being challenged on your intentional misquoting. You've been caught using that above misquote at least three times now, and yet you still continue to use it. You deserve all the derision you get here, Harrison, because you're a proven liar and a cheat. If you had any argument at all you wouldn't need to lie and misrepresent those who reject it. And what exactly IS your argument anyway, Harrison - that farm animals get to experience life because people like you insist they be raised for food? So what? That's not a valid argument to continue breeding them. Do you know anything about descriptive and normative ethics, and how they deal with YOUR so-called arguments? Descriptive ethics merely presents facts, such as, "Farmed animals get to experience life because we breed them for food." The information given in such a statement as that can either be true or false, but notice that the statement itself doesn't make any moral claims about animals, food or getting to experience life. It just tells us what *is.* Normative ethics concerns itself with moral claims within statements which tell the reader what he *ought* to do. For example, "We should eat meat so that farmed animals get to experience life." The only way to counter a normative ethic is to offer another normative ethic such as, "We should not eat meat so that farmed animals get to experience life." Again, another moral claim which instructs the reader in what he ought to do. What you cannot do is challenge a normative ethic with a descriptive one. You cannot argue normative ethics by jumping from descriptive ethics. In short, you cannot get an *ought* from an *is*, and that's exactly what you try doing when announcing the empty fact that "farmed animals get to experience life because we breed them for food." You're an imbecile, and little things like I've just described pass right over your head without you even realising it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing
goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message . .. >> >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message m... >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message >>>>>>news:mbv5415cseom626m45lnhushv8jllj1ggf@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't believe Jon to be an ARA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? He can't present any decent >>>>>>>examples of his opposition to "AR". >>>>>>>Dutch can't either. But if you can, please >>>>>>>do. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think if they were really ARAs, then >>>>>>they would not be meat eaters, >>>>> >>>>> And what in the world could possibly have >>>>>made you believe they are meat eaters? If >>>>>they are what I believe them to be, two of >>>>>the things they would *have* to lie about a >>>>> >>>>>1. that they are "ARAs" >>>>>2. that they consume animal products >>>>> >>>>>We know for a fact that they lie about some >>>>>things, so what would make you think they >>>>>would not lie about what is most important >>>>>for them to lie about? >>>> >>>>They really don't sound ARAish to >>>>me. They just give the wrong >>>>impression sometimes with the >>>>way they word stuff. >>> >>> I have only reason to believe they are "ARAs", >>>and no reason to believe they are not. And it has >>>been that way for years. If you think you can >>>provide reason to believe they're not "ARAs", >>>then just do it. But they can't, so don't feel too >>>bad if you can't either...you should feel bad about >>>being fooled by them though, imo. >>> >>> >>>>As far as >>>>consuming animal products, I >>>>think they do, >>> >>> I don't. LOL. Why would you? >> >>If they were really ARAs they >>wouldn't be eating meat, and >>if not eating meat, then they >>would have no reason to lie >>and say they do eat meat. > > > They have MUCH reason to lie about it. No. And you know we're not lying, Goober****wit. > > >>Since they do say they eat >>meat, I believe them on that >>one. > > > I don't. Yes, you do. >> >>I would want to see the full thread >>to see it in context (especially the >>last one), > > > Then look it up. In case you're not familiar > with it, go to: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > > and you'll most likely (I hope) be able > to figure out what to do. If not let me > know, so we can get you on it so you > know how to do it from then on. You STUPID ****, Goober****wit! Skanky won't look up ANYTHING, not even if you offer her money for it. She's too lazy. > I hope you will notice that I've been > honest about how to find the info you > menioned, and have made it available > the entire time. What you have NOT been honest about, Goober****wit, is your phony belief that Dutch and I are "aras". You KNOW we're not, Goober****wit; you only call us "aras" because you're mad at us, in a ****y way, for having demolished your "getting to experience life" bullshit. > Also that I've been honest > with a bunch of dishonest lowlife scum > "ARAs" No, you haven't, Goober****wit, because you ignore their real argument and whack away against a strawman. You ALSO haven't been honest with Dutch and me, who you KNOW are not "aras". ADMIT that you know we're not "aras", Goober****wit; we are opponents of "ar" who point out your bullshit is not any real opposition to "ar" at all. >>but it is possible that >>he believes in some animal >>rights but not to the extent of >>being ARA. > > > Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion > that people deliberately contribute to > decent AW for livestock instead of their > elimination, is an "ARA" to me. NO, Goober****wit. That isn't what makes one an "ara", and you KNOW it. First of all, you are NOT concerned with "decent AW" for livestock; you are ONLY concerned that the livestock exist, period, IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of their welfare. Second, you have NOT addressed "aras'" belief that the very best AW imaginable still isn't good enough, and that killing the animals undoes all the moral "benefit" of good AW. That's what I mean I say you haven't addressed the concerns of "aras", Goober****wit. You haven't. >>>>Only >>>>they really know the truth about >>>>themselves. They definitely >>>>don't claim to be ARAs or to >>>>not consume animal products. >>> >>> As I pointed out, those are the most >>>important things for them to lie about, >>>so of course they do lie about them. >> >>But there would be no >>advantage to lying about >>those things. If they were >>vegans and/or ARAs >>themselves, why would >>they speak out against >>it? > > > No one has presented examples of it. Yes, Goober****wit, you have seen it. It just doesn't include your ****WITTED "getting to experience life" crapola, so you dismiss it. But you HAVE seen it. Stop lying. >>> Have you noticed that so far no one--including >>>you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses >>>arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, >>>and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree >>>with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then >>>he would support AW over "AR", imo. >> >>Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, >>Dutch and Rick go on about their >>choice of meats being the low cd >>ones? > > > I don't believe anyone can post an example of the > Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. I can post an example of you saying you do NOT consume low-CD beef, Goober****wit. > It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about > everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about > that. We haven't lied about anything substantive, Goober****wit. >>He writes that way when he's >>telling you what HE thinks that >>YOU believe, > > > HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with what you believe, you cocksucking liar. I explained it fully: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. You believe it's a good comparison, Goober****wit, and it isn't. You believe causing animals to live (NOT provide them with "decent AW") is an ethically superior thing to do, Goober****wit, and it isn't. You believe your ****WITTED story is an adequate reply to the concerns of "vegans"/"aras", Goober****wit, and it isn't. My explanation for why I don't want people to pay attention to your ****wittery has everything to do with what you believe. You believe SHIT, and no one should give it a moment's consideration when trying to decide what is ethical towards animals. Once AGAIN, Goober****wit, you lose. You ALWAYS lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing
goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message . .. >> >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message m... >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message >>>>>>news:mbv5415cseom626m45lnhushv8jllj1ggf@4ax. com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't believe Jon to be an ARA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? He can't present any decent >>>>>>>examples of his opposition to "AR". >>>>>>>Dutch can't either. But if you can, please >>>>>>>do. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think if they were really ARAs, then >>>>>>they would not be meat eaters, >>>>> >>>>> And what in the world could possibly have >>>>>made you believe they are meat eaters? If >>>>>they are what I believe them to be, two of >>>>>the things they would *have* to lie about a >>>>> >>>>>1. that they are "ARAs" >>>>>2. that they consume animal products >>>>> >>>>>We know for a fact that they lie about some >>>>>things, so what would make you think they >>>>>would not lie about what is most important >>>>>for them to lie about? >>>> >>>>They really don't sound ARAish to >>>>me. They just give the wrong >>>>impression sometimes with the >>>>way they word stuff. >>> >>> I have only reason to believe they are "ARAs", >>>and no reason to believe they are not. And it has >>>been that way for years. If you think you can >>>provide reason to believe they're not "ARAs", >>>then just do it. But they can't, so don't feel too >>>bad if you can't either...you should feel bad about >>>being fooled by them though, imo. >>> >>> >>>>As far as >>>>consuming animal products, I >>>>think they do, >>> >>> I don't. LOL. Why would you? >> >>If they were really ARAs they >>wouldn't be eating meat, and >>if not eating meat, then they >>would have no reason to lie >>and say they do eat meat. > > > They have MUCH reason to lie about it. No. And you know we're not lying, Goober****wit. > > >>Since they do say they eat >>meat, I believe them on that >>one. > > > I don't. Yes, you do. >> >>I would want to see the full thread >>to see it in context (especially the >>last one), > > > Then look it up. In case you're not familiar > with it, go to: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > > and you'll most likely (I hope) be able > to figure out what to do. If not let me > know, so we can get you on it so you > know how to do it from then on. You STUPID ****, Goober****wit! Skanky won't look up ANYTHING, not even if you offer her money for it. She's too lazy. > I hope you will notice that I've been > honest about how to find the info you > menioned, and have made it available > the entire time. What you have NOT been honest about, Goober****wit, is your phony belief that Dutch and I are "aras". You KNOW we're not, Goober****wit; you only call us "aras" because you're mad at us, in a ****y way, for having demolished your "getting to experience life" bullshit. > Also that I've been honest > with a bunch of dishonest lowlife scum > "ARAs" No, you haven't, Goober****wit, because you ignore their real argument and whack away against a strawman. You ALSO haven't been honest with Dutch and me, who you KNOW are not "aras". ADMIT that you know we're not "aras", Goober****wit; we are opponents of "ar" who point out your bullshit is not any real opposition to "ar" at all. >>but it is possible that >>he believes in some animal >>rights but not to the extent of >>being ARA. > > > Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion > that people deliberately contribute to > decent AW for livestock instead of their > elimination, is an "ARA" to me. NO, Goober****wit. That isn't what makes one an "ara", and you KNOW it. First of all, you are NOT concerned with "decent AW" for livestock; you are ONLY concerned that the livestock exist, period, IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of their welfare. Second, you have NOT addressed "aras'" belief that the very best AW imaginable still isn't good enough, and that killing the animals undoes all the moral "benefit" of good AW. That's what I mean I say you haven't addressed the concerns of "aras", Goober****wit. You haven't. >>>>Only >>>>they really know the truth about >>>>themselves. They definitely >>>>don't claim to be ARAs or to >>>>not consume animal products. >>> >>> As I pointed out, those are the most >>>important things for them to lie about, >>>so of course they do lie about them. >> >>But there would be no >>advantage to lying about >>those things. If they were >>vegans and/or ARAs >>themselves, why would >>they speak out against >>it? > > > No one has presented examples of it. Yes, Goober****wit, you have seen it. It just doesn't include your ****WITTED "getting to experience life" crapola, so you dismiss it. But you HAVE seen it. Stop lying. >>> Have you noticed that so far no one--including >>>you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses >>>arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, >>>and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree >>>with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then >>>he would support AW over "AR", imo. >> >>Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, >>Dutch and Rick go on about their >>choice of meats being the low cd >>ones? > > > I don't believe anyone can post an example of the > Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. I can post an example of you saying you do NOT consume low-CD beef, Goober****wit. > It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about > everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about > that. We haven't lied about anything substantive, Goober****wit. >>He writes that way when he's >>telling you what HE thinks that >>YOU believe, > > > HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with what you believe, you cocksucking liar. I explained it fully: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. You believe it's a good comparison, Goober****wit, and it isn't. You believe causing animals to live (NOT provide them with "decent AW") is an ethically superior thing to do, Goober****wit, and it isn't. You believe your ****WITTED story is an adequate reply to the concerns of "vegans"/"aras", Goober****wit, and it isn't. My explanation for why I don't want people to pay attention to your ****wittery has everything to do with what you believe. You believe SHIT, and no one should give it a moment's consideration when trying to decide what is ethical towards animals. Once AGAIN, Goober****wit, you lose. You ALWAYS lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing
goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:14:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:12:59 -0500, Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: >> >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:22 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: >>> >>>>> I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >>>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with >>>> >>>>He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he >>>>appears to contradict himself and promote something >>>>he flatly rejects. >>> >>> That's a lie. He admittedly believes it's evil to kill animals: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:20 GMT >>> >>>You consider that it "got to experience life" to be >>>some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>That quote refers to you and your argument. It says >>nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything. > > > That's a lie. That's not a lie. Derek got the reference EXACTLY right. It refers to YOU and your belief that killing animals requires mitigation. >>Note that the first two words in that sentence is "You >>consider", Harrison. RIGHT, "Harrison", you lying cocksucker. >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan >>>Subject: Skunky ****es all over the trolls >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT >>> >>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>>their deaths >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>You've taken that half-quote completely out of context >>and removed all the qualifiers to make it appear that >>Jon feels it necessary to mitigate the deaths of the >>animals he eats. Only YOU do that, Harrison. Here's >>the complete quote > > > That's a lie. It's not a lie, Goober****wit. Derek got it exactly right, below. > > >>including the start of his >>sentence which you carved off. >> >> [I'll put it in my own words - which you have already >> seen, many times, and acknowledged - just one more >> time. Before doing so, ****wit, I want to make clear >> that we both know you are only trying to waste my time. >> >> The reason "giving them life" doesn't mitigate the >> potential wrongness is because "giving them life" has >> no moral content. It has no moral content because: >> >> a) the animals weren't bred in order to give them the >> "chance" to "get to experience life" >> b) causing them to live is not doing *them* a good deed.] >> Rapeseed Canola 29 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/4om32 >> >>You're just making things even worse for yourself, stupid. >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Wilson Woods > >> >>That email address rings a bell. >> >> >>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology >>>Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good >>>questions? >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT >>> >>>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >>>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's >>>your answer. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of >>>changing it in some other way: >> >>Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that >>you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try >>it again despite that. Here's the quote in full and a link to >>it, showing that you are indeed a very bad liar, Harrison. >> >>[start - Harrison] >> > I've asked you "ARAs" >> >>No. >> >> >>>more than once for whom or what it would >>>be better not to raise animals to eat. >> >> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's >> your answer.] >> Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu >> >>Note that the begining of your misquote is missing. >>Archives show that Jon started by declaring, "They >>(the ARAs you referred to) answer", not what he >>would answer, liar Harrison. > > > He agrees with them No, Goober****wit, I don't, and you KNOW it. But you had to alter the quote to try to make it appear that way. You were caught. You always get caught. > He even explained in some detail why he does NOT want > people to contribute to decent AW over "AR": > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Rudy Canoza > > Message-ID: . net> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > > dh wrote: > > >> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >>to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > > > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison . . . > > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > > 3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You mangled THAT too, Goober****wit. Here's what I actually wrote: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. You get caught EVERY time, Goober****wit. You prove every time that you're a liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing
goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:14:53 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:12:59 -0500, Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: >> >>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:52:22 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied: >>> >>>>> I wish you would try to explain why you think he would use >>>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with >>>> >>>>He doesn't. It's only when you misquote him that he >>>>appears to contradict himself and promote something >>>>he flatly rejects. >>> >>> That's a lie. He admittedly believes it's evil to kill animals: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:46:20 GMT >>> >>>You consider that it "got to experience life" to be >>>some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>That quote refers to you and your argument. It says >>nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything. > > > That's a lie. That's not a lie. Derek got the reference EXACTLY right. It refers to YOU and your belief that killing animals requires mitigation. >>Note that the first two words in that sentence is "You >>consider", Harrison. RIGHT, "Harrison", you lying cocksucker. >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan >>>Subject: Skunky ****es all over the trolls >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT >>> >>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>>their deaths >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>You've taken that half-quote completely out of context >>and removed all the qualifiers to make it appear that >>Jon feels it necessary to mitigate the deaths of the >>animals he eats. Only YOU do that, Harrison. Here's >>the complete quote > > > That's a lie. It's not a lie, Goober****wit. Derek got it exactly right, below. > > >>including the start of his >>sentence which you carved off. >> >> [I'll put it in my own words - which you have already >> seen, many times, and acknowledged - just one more >> time. Before doing so, ****wit, I want to make clear >> that we both know you are only trying to waste my time. >> >> The reason "giving them life" doesn't mitigate the >> potential wrongness is because "giving them life" has >> no moral content. It has no moral content because: >> >> a) the animals weren't bred in order to give them the >> "chance" to "get to experience life" >> b) causing them to live is not doing *them* a good deed.] >> Rapeseed Canola 29 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/4om32 >> >>You're just making things even worse for yourself, stupid. >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Wilson Woods > >> >>That email address rings a bell. >> >> >>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agricultu re,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology >>>Subject: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good >>>questions? >>>Message-ID: et> >>>Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT >>> >>>It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >>>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's >>>your answer. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of >>>changing it in some other way: >> >>Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that >>you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try >>it again despite that. Here's the quote in full and a link to >>it, showing that you are indeed a very bad liar, Harrison. >> >>[start - Harrison] >> > I've asked you "ARAs" >> >>No. >> >> >>>more than once for whom or what it would >>>be better not to raise animals to eat. >> >> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense >>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they >> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's >> your answer.] >> Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu >> >>Note that the begining of your misquote is missing. >>Archives show that Jon started by declaring, "They >>(the ARAs you referred to) answer", not what he >>would answer, liar Harrison. > > > He agrees with them No, Goober****wit, I don't, and you KNOW it. But you had to alter the quote to try to make it appear that way. You were caught. You always get caught. > He even explained in some detail why he does NOT want > people to contribute to decent AW over "AR": > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Rudy Canoza > > Message-ID: . net> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > > dh wrote: > > >> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >>to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > > > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison . . . > > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > > 3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You mangled THAT too, Goober****wit. Here's what I actually wrote: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. You get caught EVERY time, Goober****wit. You prove every time that you're a liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>No. I don't make any claim to read minds. Go back to >>>>>>>>my round world example. It is a PERFECT illustration >>>>>>>>of the point. If you claim to believe the world is >>>>>>>>round, then you necessarily MUST believe that one >>>>>>>>cannot fall off the edge of the world - because the >>>>>>>>world doesn't have edges if it's round. If you >>>>>>>>subsequently claim, "No, I believe it IS possible to >>>>>>>>fall off the edge of the world", then only two >>>>>>>>conclusions are possible: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. you lied when you said you believe the world is round >>>>>>>>2. you didn't lie, but you do believe you can fall off >>>>>>>> the edge, and you are therefore insane. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Your choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>So which is it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Are you asking me if I believe >>>>>that the world is round? >>>> >>>>I'm asking if you were lying about your earlier >>>>beliefs, or if you're insane. >>> >>> >>>I'm not lying or insane. >> >>NECESSARILY one or the other. > > > Not necessarily. Yes, necessarily. >>>Which of our >>>arguments do you have in mind >>>when you show your examples? >> >>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it >>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you >>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > > > I think now that cds are the farmer's > responsibility. They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why they aren't entirely his. You share in the responsibility, whether you like it or not. >>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a >>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to >>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS >>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" >>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized >>>>>>>thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, >>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and >>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to >>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even >>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it >>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. >>>>>It is very wrong. >>>> >>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is >>>>very bad. >>>> >>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and >>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. >>> >>> >>>We'll never agree on my use >>>of the words wrong and bad. >> >>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence >>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in >>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the >>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally >>healthy adults have moved beyond. > > > You're just all ****y because I > refuse to do what you're telling > me to do. No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for you is being told what to do. That "you're not the boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. >>>>>>Morality is NOT personal. Something either is wrong, >>>>>>or it isn't, and your "personal take" is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>>Get that ****witted idea out of your head NOW. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Get used to the idea that some >>>>>people might believe differently >>>>>than you. >>>> >>>>This is not a matter of belief. Morality is not >>>>personal, no matter what your ****witted stupid beliefs >>>>are. >>> >>> >>>We disagree on that. >> >>You are incorrect. >> >> >> >>>>>>>People frequently have >>>>>>>different morals than each >>>>>>>other. >>>>>> >>>>>>The morals they have are NOT the same as what IS moral. >>>>>>You have the morals of a cockroach, but that doesn't >>>>>>change the fact that sodomizing children with a >>>>>>broomhandle simply IS wrong and immoral. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong >>>>>and immoral. >>>> >>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and >>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say >>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. >>> >>> >>>That's odd, >> >>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, >>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is >>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of >>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional >>development (which is why you're single and childless) >>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > > > You're still trying aren't you? Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I know. >>>>>>>However, most would >>>>>>>agree that your fave example >>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of >>>>>>your fat head, too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I use them interchangably. >>>> >>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. >>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the >>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. >>>> >>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're >>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used >>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of >>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. >>> >>> >>>A little hung up on >> >>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > > Oink oink (fusspot) Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. >>>>>>>>>>You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss >>>>>>>>>>of me!" attitude... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No, I save that one for when you're >>>>>>>>>trying to tell me what I think or >>>>>>>>>should think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have never attempted to tell you either. I've told >>>>>>>>you what you MUST believe or think if you are telling >>>>>>>>the truth when you say you believe or think something >>>>>>>>else. I am telling you what the necessary implications >>>>>>>>of your prior statements of belief are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are telling me what YOU think >>>>>>>I must believe, >>>>>> >>>>>>No, I am telling you additional beliefs that are >>>>>>logically implied by your prior beliefs. There is no >>>>>>choice in the matter: if you believe the world is >>>>>>round, you MUST believe that one cannot fall of the >>>>>>edge of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's not a good comparison >>>>>to our debates, which weren't >>>>>so cut and dry. >>>> >>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", >>>>you illiterate shit.) >>> >>> >>>I have to say, it's amusing to see >>>you get so worked up over things. >> >>You are an illiterate shit. > > > You are funny when you're mad. I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. >>>>>>>>>Quality of life is a big thing >>>>>>>>>ethically speaking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mine and a lot of other people's >>>>>>>too. Don't you agree with it? >>>>>> >>>>>>Popular agreement with it doesn't change whether it is >>>>>>or isn't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, but I'm wondering if you >>>>>would agree. >>>> >>>>I indicated long ago I do. Typically, you weren't >>>>paying attention. >>> >>> >>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a >>>perfect memory of everything >>>everyone says here. >> >>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's >>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect >>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is >>that you forgot. > > > Then why aren't I making it now > that you reminded me? "I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. >>>>>>>>>>>If so, that sucks, >>>>>>>>>>>both for being a lie and for meaning >>>>>>>>>>>that he doesn't consider quality.My >>>>>>>>>>>opinion of Jon hasn't changed. >>>>>>>>>>>Despite his lack of lying this time, >>>>>>>>>>>and the effort put into searching out >>>>>>>>>>>quotes, he still thinks I'm a **** >>>>>>>>>>>etc, so I basically think he's an >>>>>>>>>>>asshole. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You don't really mean that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fraid so. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's true. >>>> >>>>Nope. >>> >>> >>>I do mean that. >> >>Nope. > > > Why do you insist on this. I always insist on the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>No. I don't make any claim to read minds. Go back to >>>>>>>>my round world example. It is a PERFECT illustration >>>>>>>>of the point. If you claim to believe the world is >>>>>>>>round, then you necessarily MUST believe that one >>>>>>>>cannot fall off the edge of the world - because the >>>>>>>>world doesn't have edges if it's round. If you >>>>>>>>subsequently claim, "No, I believe it IS possible to >>>>>>>>fall off the edge of the world", then only two >>>>>>>>conclusions are possible: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. you lied when you said you believe the world is round >>>>>>>>2. you didn't lie, but you do believe you can fall off >>>>>>>> the edge, and you are therefore insane. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Your choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>So which is it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Are you asking me if I believe >>>>>that the world is round? >>>> >>>>I'm asking if you were lying about your earlier >>>>beliefs, or if you're insane. >>> >>> >>>I'm not lying or insane. >> >>NECESSARILY one or the other. > > > Not necessarily. Yes, necessarily. >>>Which of our >>>arguments do you have in mind >>>when you show your examples? >> >>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it >>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you >>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > > > I think now that cds are the farmer's > responsibility. They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why they aren't entirely his. You share in the responsibility, whether you like it or not. >>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a >>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to >>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS >>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" >>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized >>>>>>>thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, >>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and >>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to >>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even >>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it >>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. >>>>>It is very wrong. >>>> >>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is >>>>very bad. >>>> >>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and >>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. >>> >>> >>>We'll never agree on my use >>>of the words wrong and bad. >> >>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence >>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in >>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the >>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally >>healthy adults have moved beyond. > > > You're just all ****y because I > refuse to do what you're telling > me to do. No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for you is being told what to do. That "you're not the boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. >>>>>>Morality is NOT personal. Something either is wrong, >>>>>>or it isn't, and your "personal take" is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>>Get that ****witted idea out of your head NOW. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Get used to the idea that some >>>>>people might believe differently >>>>>than you. >>>> >>>>This is not a matter of belief. Morality is not >>>>personal, no matter what your ****witted stupid beliefs >>>>are. >>> >>> >>>We disagree on that. >> >>You are incorrect. >> >> >> >>>>>>>People frequently have >>>>>>>different morals than each >>>>>>>other. >>>>>> >>>>>>The morals they have are NOT the same as what IS moral. >>>>>>You have the morals of a cockroach, but that doesn't >>>>>>change the fact that sodomizing children with a >>>>>>broomhandle simply IS wrong and immoral. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong >>>>>and immoral. >>>> >>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and >>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say >>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. >>> >>> >>>That's odd, >> >>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, >>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is >>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of >>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional >>development (which is why you're single and childless) >>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > > > You're still trying aren't you? Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I know. >>>>>>>However, most would >>>>>>>agree that your fave example >>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of >>>>>>your fat head, too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I use them interchangably. >>>> >>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. >>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the >>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. >>>> >>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're >>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used >>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of >>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. >>> >>> >>>A little hung up on >> >>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > > Oink oink (fusspot) Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. >>>>>>>>>>You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss >>>>>>>>>>of me!" attitude... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No, I save that one for when you're >>>>>>>>>trying to tell me what I think or >>>>>>>>>should think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have never attempted to tell you either. I've told >>>>>>>>you what you MUST believe or think if you are telling >>>>>>>>the truth when you say you believe or think something >>>>>>>>else. I am telling you what the necessary implications >>>>>>>>of your prior statements of belief are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are telling me what YOU think >>>>>>>I must believe, >>>>>> >>>>>>No, I am telling you additional beliefs that are >>>>>>logically implied by your prior beliefs. There is no >>>>>>choice in the matter: if you believe the world is >>>>>>round, you MUST believe that one cannot fall of the >>>>>>edge of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's not a good comparison >>>>>to our debates, which weren't >>>>>so cut and dry. >>>> >>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", >>>>you illiterate shit.) >>> >>> >>>I have to say, it's amusing to see >>>you get so worked up over things. >> >>You are an illiterate shit. > > > You are funny when you're mad. I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. >>>>>>>>>Quality of life is a big thing >>>>>>>>>ethically speaking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mine and a lot of other people's >>>>>>>too. Don't you agree with it? >>>>>> >>>>>>Popular agreement with it doesn't change whether it is >>>>>>or isn't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, but I'm wondering if you >>>>>would agree. >>>> >>>>I indicated long ago I do. Typically, you weren't >>>>paying attention. >>> >>> >>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a >>>perfect memory of everything >>>everyone says here. >> >>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's >>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect >>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is >>that you forgot. > > > Then why aren't I making it now > that you reminded me? "I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. >>>>>>>>>>>If so, that sucks, >>>>>>>>>>>both for being a lie and for meaning >>>>>>>>>>>that he doesn't consider quality.My >>>>>>>>>>>opinion of Jon hasn't changed. >>>>>>>>>>>Despite his lack of lying this time, >>>>>>>>>>>and the effort put into searching out >>>>>>>>>>>quotes, he still thinks I'm a **** >>>>>>>>>>>etc, so I basically think he's an >>>>>>>>>>>asshole. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You don't really mean that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fraid so. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's true. >>>> >>>>Nope. >>> >>> >>>I do mean that. >> >>Nope. > > > Why do you insist on this. I always insist on the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message > ... > >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > >>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message ... >>> >>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message om... >>>>>As far as >>>>>consuming animal products, I >>>>>think they do, >>>> >>>> I don't. LOL. Why would you? >>> >>>If they were really ARAs they >>>wouldn't be eating meat, and >>>if not eating meat, then they >>>would have no reason to lie >>>and say they do eat meat. >> >> They have MUCH reason to lie about it. > > > What reasons? If they were > really ARAs We're not, and Goober****wit knows it. >> Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion >>that people deliberately contribute to >>decent AW for livestock instead of their >>elimination, is an "ARA" to me. > > > I haven't seen them actually > oppose decent AW. Right, and you won't, because Dutch and I both support decent AW. What we oppose is Goober****wit's cynical misuse of AW as a tool to try to dupe "vegans" into eating meat, when all he REALLY wants is to get them to support continued existence for livestock, IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of life. > In fact > for a while they were all going > on ad nauseum about the better > of the meats, aw-wise, referring > to the low cds of certain meats. Right - because that shoots your CD-causing stance all to hell. > While I'm against the id at the > end (intentional death), I can > see that they are not since > they do eat meat. A real ARA > would I imagine be against > the id. Vegans are not > needed to be convinced > into eating meat to save the > animals. There are more > than enough meat eaters > already that the few better > farms wouldn't be able to > supply them all. That leaves > the factory farms which should > not exist, so if anything, there > should be even more people > giving up meat, so at least > only the better farms remain. > > >>>>>Only >>>>>they really know the truth about >>>>>themselves. They definitely >>>>>don't claim to be ARAs or to >>>>>not consume animal products. >>>> >>>> As I pointed out, those are the most >>>>important things for them to lie about, >>>>so of course they do lie about them. >>> >>>But there would be no >>>advantage to lying about >>>those things. If they were >>>vegans and/or ARAs >>>themselves, why would >>>they speak out against >>>it? >> >> No one has presented examples of it. > > > They quite openly say they are > not against the raising of > animals for meat. They also > quite openly say they are not > ARAs. And back it up, too, as Goober****wit well knows. He's lying when he says he has seen no "examples" of it. >>>>>>>since >>>>>>>within the AR movement, that's an >>>>>>>essential, even when the rest is >>>>>>>debated. Sometimes Jon's posts >>>>>>>are worded in such a manner that it >>>>>>>appears to be his beliefs, but other >>>>>>>times he makes it a bit more clear >>>>>>>that it's what he thinks others >>>>>>>believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you need to do what they have so >>>>>>far been unable to do, which is explain why >>>>>>you believe the Gonad uses arguments that >>>>>>he doesn't agree with. So far I only have >>>>>>reason to believe he very much agrees with >>>>>>them, and simply lies about it like he does >>>>>>some many other things. >>>>> >>>>>I think he tends to try and set >>>>>people up by insisting that their >>>>>beliefs mean things that are not >>>>>true. He's hoping to set them >>>>>up for a fall. He will claim that >>>>>they are not doing enough >>>>>according to (what he thinks >>>>>is) their beliefs. >>>> >>>> Have you noticed that so far no one--including >>>>you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses >>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, >>>>and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree >>>>with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then >>>>he would support AW over "AR", imo. >>> >>>Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, >>>Dutch and Rick go on about their >>>choice of meats being the low cd >>>ones? >> >> I don't believe anyone can post an example of the >>Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. >>It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about >>everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about >>that. >> >> >>>> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT >>>>want people to consider contributing to decent AW >>>>over "AR": >>>>______________________________________________ ___________ >>>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>>Message-ID: . net> >>>>Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT >>>> >>>>dh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >>>>>to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >>>> >>>>1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . >>>> >>>>2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically >>>> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. >>>> >>>>3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the >>>> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ That's not what I wrote. Here's what I actually wrote: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. Think you can trust Goober****wit to get anyone's quotes right, Skanky? Think again. >>>He writes that way when he's >>>telling you what HE thinks that >>>YOU believe, >> >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to >>consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it >>has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! >> >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? >>Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The >>Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly >>why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest >>*******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want >>me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock >>over their elimination. > > > I've received no suck-up emails. Neither did Goober****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message > ... > >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > >>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message ... >>> >>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:52:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>>>Goober****wit , the dumbest ****ing goober cracker in all of Georgia, lied in message om... >>>>>As far as >>>>>consuming animal products, I >>>>>think they do, >>>> >>>> I don't. LOL. Why would you? >>> >>>If they were really ARAs they >>>wouldn't be eating meat, and >>>if not eating meat, then they >>>would have no reason to lie >>>and say they do eat meat. >> >> They have MUCH reason to lie about it. > > > What reasons? If they were > really ARAs We're not, and Goober****wit knows it. >> Anyone who OPPOSES the suggestion >>that people deliberately contribute to >>decent AW for livestock instead of their >>elimination, is an "ARA" to me. > > > I haven't seen them actually > oppose decent AW. Right, and you won't, because Dutch and I both support decent AW. What we oppose is Goober****wit's cynical misuse of AW as a tool to try to dupe "vegans" into eating meat, when all he REALLY wants is to get them to support continued existence for livestock, IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of life. > In fact > for a while they were all going > on ad nauseum about the better > of the meats, aw-wise, referring > to the low cds of certain meats. Right - because that shoots your CD-causing stance all to hell. > While I'm against the id at the > end (intentional death), I can > see that they are not since > they do eat meat. A real ARA > would I imagine be against > the id. Vegans are not > needed to be convinced > into eating meat to save the > animals. There are more > than enough meat eaters > already that the few better > farms wouldn't be able to > supply them all. That leaves > the factory farms which should > not exist, so if anything, there > should be even more people > giving up meat, so at least > only the better farms remain. > > >>>>>Only >>>>>they really know the truth about >>>>>themselves. They definitely >>>>>don't claim to be ARAs or to >>>>>not consume animal products. >>>> >>>> As I pointed out, those are the most >>>>important things for them to lie about, >>>>so of course they do lie about them. >>> >>>But there would be no >>>advantage to lying about >>>those things. If they were >>>vegans and/or ARAs >>>themselves, why would >>>they speak out against >>>it? >> >> No one has presented examples of it. > > > They quite openly say they are > not against the raising of > animals for meat. They also > quite openly say they are not > ARAs. And back it up, too, as Goober****wit well knows. He's lying when he says he has seen no "examples" of it. >>>>>>>since >>>>>>>within the AR movement, that's an >>>>>>>essential, even when the rest is >>>>>>>debated. Sometimes Jon's posts >>>>>>>are worded in such a manner that it >>>>>>>appears to be his beliefs, but other >>>>>>>times he makes it a bit more clear >>>>>>>that it's what he thinks others >>>>>>>believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you need to do what they have so >>>>>>far been unable to do, which is explain why >>>>>>you believe the Gonad uses arguments that >>>>>>he doesn't agree with. So far I only have >>>>>>reason to believe he very much agrees with >>>>>>them, and simply lies about it like he does >>>>>>some many other things. >>>>> >>>>>I think he tends to try and set >>>>>people up by insisting that their >>>>>beliefs mean things that are not >>>>>true. He's hoping to set them >>>>>up for a fall. He will claim that >>>>>they are not doing enough >>>>>according to (what he thinks >>>>>is) their beliefs. >>>> >>>> Have you noticed that so far no one--including >>>>you--has given reason to believe the Gonad uses >>>>arguments that he doesn't agree with? I noticed, >>>>and so of course I'm still aware that he does agree >>>>with them. If he didn't favor "AR" over AW, then >>>>he would support AW over "AR", imo. >>> >>>Are you sure he doesn't? Don't him, >>>Dutch and Rick go on about their >>>choice of meats being the low cd >>>ones? >> >> I don't believe anyone can post an example of the >>Gonad or Dutch saying they consume low cd meat. >>It doesn't matter anyway, because they lie about >>everything and certainly wouldn't hesitate to lie about >>that. >> >> >>>> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT >>>>want people to consider contributing to decent AW >>>>over "AR": >>>>______________________________________________ ___________ >>>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>>Message-ID: . net> >>>>Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT >>>> >>>>dh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >>>>>to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >>>> >>>>1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . >>>> >>>>2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically >>>> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. >>>> >>>>3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the >>>> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ That's not what I wrote. Here's what I actually wrote: 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY care about is the animals' "getting to experience life", NOT any "decent lives". 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough in their opinion b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. Think you can trust Goober****wit to get anyone's quotes right, Skanky? Think again. >>>He writes that way when he's >>>telling you what HE thinks that >>>YOU believe, >> >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to >>consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it >>has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! >> >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? >>Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The >>Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly >>why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest >>*******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want >>me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock >>over their elimination. > > > I've received no suck-up emails. Neither did Goober****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > k.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No. I don't make any claim to read minds. Go back to > >>>>>>>>my round world example. It is a PERFECT illustration > >>>>>>>>of the point. If you claim to believe the world is > >>>>>>>>round, then you necessarily MUST believe that one > >>>>>>>>cannot fall off the edge of the world - because the > >>>>>>>>world doesn't have edges if it's round. If you > >>>>>>>>subsequently claim, "No, I believe it IS possible to > >>>>>>>>fall off the edge of the world", then only two > >>>>>>>>conclusions are possible: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>1. you lied when you said you believe the world is round > >>>>>>>>2. you didn't lie, but you do believe you can fall off > >>>>>>>> the edge, and you are therefore insane. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Your choice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>So which is it? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Are you asking me if I believe > >>>>>that the world is round? > >>>> > >>>>I'm asking if you were lying about your earlier > >>>>beliefs, or if you're insane. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'm not lying or insane. > >> > >>NECESSARILY one or the other. > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > Yes, necessarily. > > > >>>Which of our > >>>arguments do you have in mind > >>>when you show your examples? > >> > >>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it > >>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you > >>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY > >>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > > > > > > I think now that cds are the farmer's > > responsibility. > > They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > they aren't entirely his. You share in the > responsibility, whether you like it or not. Not. That's why I call it a forced complicity. > > >>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a > >>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to > >>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS > >>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" > >>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized > >>>>>>>thing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, > >>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and > >>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to > >>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even > >>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it > >>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. > >>>>>It is very wrong. > >>>> > >>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is > >>>>very bad. > >>>> > >>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and > >>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. > >>> > >>> > >>>We'll never agree on my use > >>>of the words wrong and bad. > >> > >>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > >>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > >>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > >>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > >>healthy adults have moved beyond. > > > > > > You're just all ****y because I > > refuse to do what you're telling > > me to do. > > No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go > unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for > you is being told what to do. That "you're not the > boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire > view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. Yeah, that's all I ever think about is that you're not the boss of me. If my eyes keep rolling they're going to fall out of my head. > >>>>>>Morality is NOT personal. Something either is wrong, > >>>>>>or it isn't, and your "personal take" is irrelevant. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Get that ****witted idea out of your head NOW. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Get used to the idea that some > >>>>>people might believe differently > >>>>>than you. > >>>> > >>>>This is not a matter of belief. Morality is not > >>>>personal, no matter what your ****witted stupid beliefs > >>>>are. > >>> > >>> > >>>We disagree on that. > >> > >>You are incorrect. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>People frequently have > >>>>>>>different morals than each > >>>>>>>other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The morals they have are NOT the same as what IS moral. > >>>>>>You have the morals of a cockroach, but that doesn't > >>>>>>change the fact that sodomizing children with a > >>>>>>broomhandle simply IS wrong and immoral. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong > >>>>>and immoral. > >>>> > >>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and > >>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say > >>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's odd, > >> > >>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > >>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > >>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > >>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > >>development (which is why you're single and childless) > >>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > > > > > > You're still trying aren't you? > > Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > know. 'Know' whatever you like. > >>>>>>>However, most would > >>>>>>>agree that your fave example > >>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of > >>>>>>your fat head, too. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I use them interchangably. > >>>> > >>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. > >>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the > >>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. > >>>> > >>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're > >>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used > >>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of > >>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. > >>> > >>> > >>>A little hung up on > >> > >>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > > > > > Oink oink (fusspot) > > Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. Quite funny. It necessitates a sense of humour though. > >>>>>>>>>>You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss > >>>>>>>>>>of me!" attitude... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>No, I save that one for when you're > >>>>>>>>>trying to tell me what I think or > >>>>>>>>>should think. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I have never attempted to tell you either. I've told > >>>>>>>>you what you MUST believe or think if you are telling > >>>>>>>>the truth when you say you believe or think something > >>>>>>>>else. I am telling you what the necessary implications > >>>>>>>>of your prior statements of belief are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>You are telling me what YOU think > >>>>>>>I must believe, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, I am telling you additional beliefs that are > >>>>>>logically implied by your prior beliefs. There is no > >>>>>>choice in the matter: if you believe the world is > >>>>>>round, you MUST believe that one cannot fall of the > >>>>>>edge of it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>That's not a good comparison > >>>>>to our debates, which weren't > >>>>>so cut and dry. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", > >>>>you illiterate shit.) > >>> > >>> > >>>I have to say, it's amusing to see > >>>you get so worked up over things. > >> > >>You are an illiterate shit. > > > > > > You are funny when you're mad. > > I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. So you use insults like a madman when you are not mad or angry? > >>>>>>>>>Quality of life is a big thing > >>>>>>>>>ethically speaking. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Mine and a lot of other people's > >>>>>>>too. Don't you agree with it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Popular agreement with it doesn't change whether it is > >>>>>>or isn't. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>No, but I'm wondering if you > >>>>>would agree. > >>>> > >>>>I indicated long ago I do. Typically, you weren't > >>>>paying attention. > >>> > >>> > >>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a > >>>perfect memory of everything > >>>everyone says here. > >> > >>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's > >>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect > >>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is > >>that you forgot. > > > > > > Then why aren't I making it now > > that you reminded me? > > "I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>If so, that sucks, > >>>>>>>>>>>both for being a lie and for meaning > >>>>>>>>>>>that he doesn't consider quality.My > >>>>>>>>>>>opinion of Jon hasn't changed. > >>>>>>>>>>>Despite his lack of lying this time, > >>>>>>>>>>>and the effort put into searching out > >>>>>>>>>>>quotes, he still thinks I'm a **** > >>>>>>>>>>>etc, so I basically think he's an > >>>>>>>>>>>asshole. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>You don't really mean that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I do. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You don't. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Fraid so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>It's true. > >>>> > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> > >>>I do mean that. > >> > >>Nope. > > > > > > Why do you insist on this. > > I always insist on the truth. You insist on YOUR version of the truth. Don't worry though. Everyone does that. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > k.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No. I don't make any claim to read minds. Go back to > >>>>>>>>my round world example. It is a PERFECT illustration > >>>>>>>>of the point. If you claim to believe the world is > >>>>>>>>round, then you necessarily MUST believe that one > >>>>>>>>cannot fall off the edge of the world - because the > >>>>>>>>world doesn't have edges if it's round. If you > >>>>>>>>subsequently claim, "No, I believe it IS possible to > >>>>>>>>fall off the edge of the world", then only two > >>>>>>>>conclusions are possible: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>1. you lied when you said you believe the world is round > >>>>>>>>2. you didn't lie, but you do believe you can fall off > >>>>>>>> the edge, and you are therefore insane. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Your choice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>So which is it? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Are you asking me if I believe > >>>>>that the world is round? > >>>> > >>>>I'm asking if you were lying about your earlier > >>>>beliefs, or if you're insane. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'm not lying or insane. > >> > >>NECESSARILY one or the other. > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > Yes, necessarily. > > > >>>Which of our > >>>arguments do you have in mind > >>>when you show your examples? > >> > >>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it > >>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you > >>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY > >>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > > > > > > I think now that cds are the farmer's > > responsibility. > > They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > they aren't entirely his. You share in the > responsibility, whether you like it or not. Not. That's why I call it a forced complicity. > > >>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a > >>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to > >>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS > >>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" > >>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized > >>>>>>>thing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, > >>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and > >>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to > >>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even > >>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it > >>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. > >>>>>It is very wrong. > >>>> > >>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is > >>>>very bad. > >>>> > >>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and > >>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. > >>> > >>> > >>>We'll never agree on my use > >>>of the words wrong and bad. > >> > >>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > >>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > >>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > >>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > >>healthy adults have moved beyond. > > > > > > You're just all ****y because I > > refuse to do what you're telling > > me to do. > > No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go > unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for > you is being told what to do. That "you're not the > boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire > view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. Yeah, that's all I ever think about is that you're not the boss of me. If my eyes keep rolling they're going to fall out of my head. > >>>>>>Morality is NOT personal. Something either is wrong, > >>>>>>or it isn't, and your "personal take" is irrelevant. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Get that ****witted idea out of your head NOW. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Get used to the idea that some > >>>>>people might believe differently > >>>>>than you. > >>>> > >>>>This is not a matter of belief. Morality is not > >>>>personal, no matter what your ****witted stupid beliefs > >>>>are. > >>> > >>> > >>>We disagree on that. > >> > >>You are incorrect. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>People frequently have > >>>>>>>different morals than each > >>>>>>>other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The morals they have are NOT the same as what IS moral. > >>>>>>You have the morals of a cockroach, but that doesn't > >>>>>>change the fact that sodomizing children with a > >>>>>>broomhandle simply IS wrong and immoral. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong > >>>>>and immoral. > >>>> > >>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and > >>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say > >>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's odd, > >> > >>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > >>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > >>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > >>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > >>development (which is why you're single and childless) > >>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > > > > > > You're still trying aren't you? > > Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > know. 'Know' whatever you like. > >>>>>>>However, most would > >>>>>>>agree that your fave example > >>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of > >>>>>>your fat head, too. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I use them interchangably. > >>>> > >>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. > >>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the > >>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. > >>>> > >>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're > >>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used > >>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of > >>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. > >>> > >>> > >>>A little hung up on > >> > >>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > > > > > Oink oink (fusspot) > > Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. Quite funny. It necessitates a sense of humour though. > >>>>>>>>>>You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss > >>>>>>>>>>of me!" attitude... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>No, I save that one for when you're > >>>>>>>>>trying to tell me what I think or > >>>>>>>>>should think. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I have never attempted to tell you either. I've told > >>>>>>>>you what you MUST believe or think if you are telling > >>>>>>>>the truth when you say you believe or think something > >>>>>>>>else. I am telling you what the necessary implications > >>>>>>>>of your prior statements of belief are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>You are telling me what YOU think > >>>>>>>I must believe, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, I am telling you additional beliefs that are > >>>>>>logically implied by your prior beliefs. There is no > >>>>>>choice in the matter: if you believe the world is > >>>>>>round, you MUST believe that one cannot fall of the > >>>>>>edge of it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>That's not a good comparison > >>>>>to our debates, which weren't > >>>>>so cut and dry. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", > >>>>you illiterate shit.) > >>> > >>> > >>>I have to say, it's amusing to see > >>>you get so worked up over things. > >> > >>You are an illiterate shit. > > > > > > You are funny when you're mad. > > I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. So you use insults like a madman when you are not mad or angry? > >>>>>>>>>Quality of life is a big thing > >>>>>>>>>ethically speaking. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Mine and a lot of other people's > >>>>>>>too. Don't you agree with it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Popular agreement with it doesn't change whether it is > >>>>>>or isn't. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>No, but I'm wondering if you > >>>>>would agree. > >>>> > >>>>I indicated long ago I do. Typically, you weren't > >>>>paying attention. > >>> > >>> > >>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a > >>>perfect memory of everything > >>>everyone says here. > >> > >>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's > >>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect > >>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is > >>that you forgot. > > > > > > Then why aren't I making it now > > that you reminded me? > > "I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>If so, that sucks, > >>>>>>>>>>>both for being a lie and for meaning > >>>>>>>>>>>that he doesn't consider quality.My > >>>>>>>>>>>opinion of Jon hasn't changed. > >>>>>>>>>>>Despite his lack of lying this time, > >>>>>>>>>>>and the effort put into searching out > >>>>>>>>>>>quotes, he still thinks I'm a **** > >>>>>>>>>>>etc, so I basically think he's an > >>>>>>>>>>>asshole. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>You don't really mean that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I do. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You don't. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Fraid so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>It's true. > >>>> > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> > >>>I do mean that. > >> > >>Nope. > > > > > > Why do you insist on this. > > I always insist on the truth. You insist on YOUR version of the truth. Don't worry though. Everyone does that. -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message link.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Which of our >>>>>arguments do you have in mind >>>>>when you show your examples? >>>> >>>>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it >>>>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you >>>>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>>>participation in processes that lead to animal death. >>> >>> >>>I think now that cds are the farmer's >>>responsibility. >> >>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why >>they aren't entirely his. You share in the >>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > > > Not. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there and established. > That's why I call it a forced > complicity. You call it forced because you don't like it?! You stpuid ****. It's not "forced" at all. We've been through this. Your participation is 100% voluntary. >>>>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a >>>>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to >>>>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS >>>>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" >>>>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized >>>>>>>>>thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, >>>>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and >>>>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to >>>>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even >>>>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it >>>>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. >>>>>>>It is very wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is >>>>>>very bad. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and >>>>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>We'll never agree on my use >>>>>of the words wrong and bad. >>>> >>>>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence >>>>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in >>>>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the >>>>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally >>>>healthy adults have moved beyond. >>> >>> >>>You're just all ****y because I >>>refuse to do what you're telling >>>me to do. >> >>No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go >>unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for >>you is being told what to do. That "you're not the >>boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire >>view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. > > > Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > that you're not the boss of me. It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say something based on it here in almost every post. >>>>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong >>>>>>>and immoral. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and >>>>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say >>>>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's odd, >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, >>>>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is >>>>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of >>>>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional >>>>development (which is why you're single and childless) >>>>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. >>> >>> >>>You're still trying aren't you? >> >>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I >>know. > > > 'Know' whatever you like. I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I really like that YOU know I know. >>>>>>>>>However, most would >>>>>>>>>agree that your fave example >>>>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of >>>>>>>>your fat head, too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I use them interchangably. >>>>>> >>>>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. >>>>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the >>>>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. >>>>>> >>>>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're >>>>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used >>>>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of >>>>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>A little hung up on >>>> >>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. >>> >>> >>>Oink oink (fusspot) >> >>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > > > Quite funny. Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. >>>>>>>That's not a good comparison >>>>>>>to our debates, which weren't >>>>>>>so cut and dry. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", >>>>>>you illiterate shit.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have to say, it's amusing to see >>>>>you get so worked up over things. >>>> >>>>You are an illiterate shit. >>> >>> >>>You are funny when you're mad. >> >>I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. > > > So you use insults like a madman No, I use insults skillfully. >>>>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a >>>>>perfect memory of everything >>>>>everyone says here. >>>> >>>>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's >>>>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect >>>>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is >>>>that you forgot. >>> >>> >>>Then why aren't I making it now >>>that you reminded me? >> >>"I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. You illiterate shit. >>>>>>>It's true. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I do mean that. >>>> >>>>Nope. >>> >>> >>>Why do you insist on this. >> >>I always insist on the truth. > > > You insist on YOUR version of > the truth. No, I insist on THE truth. Period. You just don't like where it leads, that's all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>Which of our > >>>>>arguments do you have in mind > >>>>>when you show your examples? > >>>> > >>>>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it > >>>>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you > >>>>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY > >>>>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > >>> > >>> > >>>I think now that cds are the farmer's > >>>responsibility. > >> > >>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > >>they aren't entirely his. You share in the > >>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > > > > > > Not. > > It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared > responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there > and established. That complicity is forced. It's also unknown. I don't know if the farmer of my eggplant ran over an animal with his plow or not. The complicity is forced and the responsibility is the farmer's. > > That's why I call it a forced > > complicity. > > You call it forced because you don't like it?! You > stpuid ****. It's not "forced" at all. We've been > through this. Your participation is 100% voluntary. We've been through this is right! And you still don't understand. I'll spare the readers here yet another repeat of my take on that. > >>>>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a > >>>>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to > >>>>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS > >>>>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" > >>>>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized > >>>>>>>>>thing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, > >>>>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and > >>>>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to > >>>>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even > >>>>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it > >>>>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. > >>>>>>>It is very wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is > >>>>>>very bad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and > >>>>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>We'll never agree on my use > >>>>>of the words wrong and bad. > >>>> > >>>>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > >>>>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > >>>>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > >>>>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > >>>>healthy adults have moved beyond. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're just all ****y because I > >>>refuse to do what you're telling > >>>me to do. > >> > >>No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go > >>unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for > >>you is being told what to do. That "you're not the > >>boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire > >>view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. > > > > > > Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > > that you're not the boss of me. > > It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > something based on it here in almost every post. I only use that in response to someone trying to boss me around. Gee, who could that be? > >>>>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong > >>>>>>>and immoral. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and > >>>>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say > >>>>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>That's odd, > >>>> > >>>>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > >>>>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > >>>>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > >>>>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > >>>>development (which is why you're single and childless) > >>>>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're still trying aren't you? > >> > >>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > >>know. > > > > > > 'Know' whatever you like. > > I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > really like that YOU know I know. Nice try, but no, I'm not going to tell you. > >>>>>>>>>However, most would > >>>>>>>>>agree that your fave example > >>>>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of > >>>>>>>>your fat head, too. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I use them interchangably. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. > >>>>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the > >>>>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're > >>>>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used > >>>>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of > >>>>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>A little hung up on > >>>> > >>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > >>> > >>> > >>>Oink oink (fusspot) > >> > >>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > > > > > > Quite funny. > > Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. It must be miserable to be you. You have no sense of humour. > >>>>>>>That's not a good comparison > >>>>>>>to our debates, which weren't > >>>>>>>so cut and dry. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", > >>>>>>you illiterate shit.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I have to say, it's amusing to see > >>>>>you get so worked up over things. > >>>> > >>>>You are an illiterate shit. > >>> > >>> > >>>You are funny when you're mad. > >> > >>I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. > > > > > > So you use insults like a madman > > No, I use insults skillfully. You insult like an insane person. Or at least a very cranky one. Are you constipated or something? > >>>>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a > >>>>>perfect memory of everything > >>>>>everyone says here. > >>>> > >>>>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's > >>>>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect > >>>>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is > >>>>that you forgot. > >>> > >>> > >>>Then why aren't I making it now > >>>that you reminded me? > >> > >>"I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. > > You illiterate shit. > > > > >>>>>>>It's true. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I do mean that. > >>>> > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> > >>>Why do you insist on this. > >> > >>I always insist on the truth. > > > > > > You insist on YOUR version of > > the truth. > > No, I insist on THE truth. Period. You just don't > like where it leads, that's all. You refuse to allow for others to have their own opinions and truths. You especially like to tell people what YOU think they believe, even when they say they don't. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>Which of our > >>>>>arguments do you have in mind > >>>>>when you show your examples? > >>>> > >>>>Your tentative, weak, poorly conceived belief that it > >>>>is wrong to kill animals, yet your insistence that you > >>>>bear no responsibility for your FULLY VOLUNTARY > >>>>participation in processes that lead to animal death. > >>> > >>> > >>>I think now that cds are the farmer's > >>>responsibility. > >> > >>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > >>they aren't entirely his. You share in the > >>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > > > > > > Not. > > It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared > responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there > and established. That complicity is forced. It's also unknown. I don't know if the farmer of my eggplant ran over an animal with his plow or not. The complicity is forced and the responsibility is the farmer's. > > That's why I call it a forced > > complicity. > > You call it forced because you don't like it?! You > stpuid ****. It's not "forced" at all. We've been > through this. Your participation is 100% voluntary. We've been through this is right! And you still don't understand. I'll spare the readers here yet another repeat of my take on that. > >>>>>>>>>>No. Morality isn't like that. You can't have a > >>>>>>>>>>personal "take" on whether or not it is moral to > >>>>>>>>>>sodomize children with broomhandles. It just IS > >>>>>>>>>>immoral, and your ****witted ignorant pot-head "take" > >>>>>>>>>>is irrelevant and laughable. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Morality is a very personlized > >>>>>>>>>thing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No, it is NOT. That's what I keep telling you, > >>>>>>>>goddamnit. You cannot have your "personal take" and > >>>>>>>>decide, *with any legitimacy*, that it is moral to > >>>>>>>>sodomize a child with a broomhandle. You can't even > >>>>>>>>legitimately say that while you think it is immoral, it > >>>>>>>>"may be" moral for someone else. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I don't think child abuse is moral. > >>>>>>>It is very wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, you think it is wrong, period. You think it is > >>>>>>very bad. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Wrongness doesn't have degrees. You are incorrect and > >>>>>>stupid and stubborn to insist it does. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>We'll never agree on my use > >>>>>of the words wrong and bad. > >>>> > >>>>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > >>>>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > >>>>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > >>>>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > >>>>healthy adults have moved beyond. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're just all ****y because I > >>>refuse to do what you're telling > >>>me to do. > >> > >>No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go > >>unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for > >>you is being told what to do. That "you're not the > >>boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire > >>view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. > > > > > > Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > > that you're not the boss of me. > > It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > something based on it here in almost every post. I only use that in response to someone trying to boss me around. Gee, who could that be? > >>>>>>>I don't disagree that it's wrong > >>>>>>>and immoral. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You're such a total asshole you can't just come out and > >>>>>>say that you DO agree; you think you'll be cute and say > >>>>>>you don't disagree. You're just an asshole. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>That's odd, > >>>> > >>>>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > >>>>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > >>>>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > >>>>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > >>>>development (which is why you're single and childless) > >>>>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're still trying aren't you? > >> > >>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > >>know. > > > > > > 'Know' whatever you like. > > I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > really like that YOU know I know. Nice try, but no, I'm not going to tell you. > >>>>>>>>>However, most would > >>>>>>>>>agree that your fave example > >>>>>>>>>is very wrong/bad. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Not "very" wrong; just wrong. VERY bad, indeed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Wrong and bad are not synonyms. Get THAT idea out of > >>>>>>>>your fat head, too. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I use them interchangably. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You shouldn't, because they're not interchangeable. > >>>>>>One has degree, one doesn't. One always implies the > >>>>>>other, but the other doesn't always imply the first. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You continue to use them interchangeably because you're > >>>>>>an asshole. I've shown you why they shouldn't be used > >>>>>>interchangeably, and you only continue to do so out of > >>>>>>stubbornness and an asshole streak a mile wide. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>A little hung up on > >>>> > >>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > >>> > >>> > >>>Oink oink (fusspot) > >> > >>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > > > > > > Quite funny. > > Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. It must be miserable to be you. You have no sense of humour. > >>>>>>>That's not a good comparison > >>>>>>>to our debates, which weren't > >>>>>>>so cut and dry. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes, they were exactly that cut and driED (not "dry", > >>>>>>you illiterate shit.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I have to say, it's amusing to see > >>>>>you get so worked up over things. > >>>> > >>>>You are an illiterate shit. > >>> > >>> > >>>You are funny when you're mad. > >> > >>I'm not mad, nor angry. You *are* an illiterate shit. > > > > > > So you use insults like a madman > > No, I use insults skillfully. You insult like an insane person. Or at least a very cranky one. Are you constipated or something? > >>>>>Ok, just asking. I don't have a > >>>>>perfect memory of everything > >>>>>everyone says here. > >>>> > >>>>You have a ****-poor memory of almost everything. It's > >>>>the pot: it's a known disruptor of memory. I suspect > >>>>the reason you didn't get around to making the soup is > >>>>that you forgot. > >>> > >>> > >>>Then why aren't I making it now > >>>that you reminded me? > >> > >>"I aren't" See, you ARE illiterate. > > You illiterate shit. > > > > >>>>>>>It's true. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I do mean that. > >>>> > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> > >>>Why do you insist on this. > >> > >>I always insist on the truth. > > > > > > You insist on YOUR version of > > the truth. > > No, I insist on THE truth. Period. You just don't > like where it leads, that's all. You refuse to allow for others to have their own opinions and truths. You especially like to tell people what YOU think they believe, even when they say they don't. -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why >>>>they aren't entirely his. You share in the >>>>responsibility, whether you like it or not. >>> >>> >>>Not. >> >>It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared >>responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there >>and established. > > > That complicity is forced. It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an "option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures does not mean it isn't an option. >>>That's why I call it a forced >>>complicity. >> >>You call it forced because you don't like it?! You >>stupid ****. It's not "forced" at all. We've been >>through this. Your participation is 100% voluntary. > > > We've been through this is > right! You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have the option of living rural and growing your own food, you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. >>>>>>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence >>>>>>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in >>>>>>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the >>>>>>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally >>>>>>healthy adults have moved beyond. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You're just all ****y because I >>>>>refuse to do what you're telling >>>>>me to do. >>>> >>>>No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go >>>>unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for >>>>you is being told what to do. That "you're not the >>>>boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire >>>>view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. >>> >>> >>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is >>>that you're not the boss of me. >> >>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say >>something based on it here in almost every post. > > > I only use that in response to > someone trying to boss me > around. You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you around when there is none. You're stuck. >>>>>>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, >>>>>>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is >>>>>>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of >>>>>>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional >>>>>>development (which is why you're single and childless) >>>>>>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You're still trying aren't you? >>>> >>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I >>>>know. >>> >>> >>>'Know' whatever you like. >> >>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I >>really like that YOU know I know. > > > Nice try, but no, I'm not going > to tell you. You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to get you to tell me; I already know. >>>>>>>A little hung up on >>>>>> >>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) >>>> >>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. >>> >>> >>>Quite funny. >> >>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. > > > It must be miserable to be > you. Actually, it's great. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > k.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > >>>>they aren't entirely his. You share in the > >>>>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not. > >> > >>It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared > >>responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there > >>and established. > > > > > > That complicity is forced. > > It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% > voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced > food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You > could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't > want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an > "option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but > it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. > It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say > it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures > does not mean it isn't an option. You know full well that it's a forced complicity. > >>>That's why I call it a forced > >>>complicity. > >> > >>You call it forced because you don't like it?! You > >>stupid ****. It's not "forced" at all. We've been > >>through this. Your participation is 100% voluntary. > > > > > > We've been through this is > > right! > > You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have > the option of living rural and growing your own food, > you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. I'm not lying and I think you should know that by now. > >>>>>>Your use is incorrect, and your stubborn insistence > >>>>>>that it is correct is due solely to your being stuck in > >>>>>>a stage of arrested moral development: "you're not the > >>>>>>boss of me!" defiance that ALL mentally and emotionally > >>>>>>healthy adults have moved beyond. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>You're just all ****y because I > >>>>>refuse to do what you're telling > >>>>>me to do. > >>>> > >>>>No, I'm just not going to let your bullshit go > >>>>unchallenged. We note that AGAIN the driving issue for > >>>>you is being told what to do. That "you're not the > >>>>boss of me!" attitude really does color your entire > >>>>view of the world, leading you to make huge errors. > >>> > >>> > >>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > >>>that you're not the boss of me. > >> > >>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > >>something based on it here in almost every post. > > > > > > I only use that in response to > > someone trying to boss me > > around. > > You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you > around when there is none. > > You're stuck. No. You just don't like to be challenged when someone doesn't do as YOU want them to. > > > >>>>>>No, it isn't. There are lots of assholes in the world, > >>>>>>and it's not surprising that a 42 year old woman who is > >>>>>>stuck at 16 year old juvenile "you're not the boss of > >>>>>>me!" defiance as her final level of moral and emotional > >>>>>>development (which is why you're single and childless) > >>>>>>would be an asshole; in fact, it's expected. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>You're still trying aren't you? > >>>> > >>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > >>>>know. > >>> > >>> > >>>'Know' whatever you like. > >> > >>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > >>really like that YOU know I know. > > > > > > Nice try, but no, I'm not going > > to tell you. > > You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to > get you to tell me; I already know. Fine. Then end of topic.  > >>>>>>>A little hung up on > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) > >>>> > >>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > >>> > >>> > >>>Quite funny. > >> > >>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. > > > > > > It must be miserable to be > > you. > > Actually, it's great. Compared to what, though? -- 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 Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT >> >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW >> >> over "AR": >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > >> >> Message-ID: . net> >> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT >> >> >> >> dh wrote: >> >> >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >> >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >> >> >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . >> >> >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically >> >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. >> >> >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the >> >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> > >> >He writes that way when he's >> >telling you what HE thinks that >> >YOU believe, >> >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to >> consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it >> has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! >> >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? >> Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The >> Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly >> why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest >> *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want >> me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock >> over their elimination. > >I've received no suck-up emails. >Our friend the gonad Dammit Nectar! You try to worry about animals, but without warning refer to the gonad as a "friend"? You could cause someone to puke all over their keyboard by doing something like that ĤĴŝ >is still an >asshole. Whew! Thanks for the quick relief :-) >I'm not lying about his >beliefs, as far as I know. He has convinced you that the impression of himself which he is trying to present, is how you should believe he truly is. There is much sadness in this, even though it is a wonderful way to interact with other humans. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe he is as he tries to portray himself imo. The fact that he lies to me about my own beliefs is only reason for me to believe that he lies about his own. The arguments that he presents in his attacks against the suggestion that people contribute to decent AW, reinforce my beliefs that he's an "ARA". I have provided quite a few quotes showing that he agrees with "AR". No one has provided a single quote which shows he does not. If they exist, please present some example(s). >Even >though it kind of looks like he's >adamantly making claims, he's >really insisting that it's what you >must believe. He is often wrong >in this. Did you even read what he wrote? No? If you did, how the hell can you possibly believe that him explaining why he doesn't want people to consider contributing to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, to be really insisting that it's what I must believe? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT >> >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW >> >> over "AR": >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > >> >> Message-ID: . net> >> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT >> >> >> >> dh wrote: >> >> >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >> >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >> >> >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . >> >> >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically >> >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. >> >> >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the >> >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> > >> >He writes that way when he's >> >telling you what HE thinks that >> >YOU believe, >> >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to >> consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it >> has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! >> >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? >> Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The >> Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly >> why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest >> *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want >> me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock >> over their elimination. > >I've received no suck-up emails. >Our friend the gonad Dammit Nectar! You try to worry about animals, but without warning refer to the gonad as a "friend"? You could cause someone to puke all over their keyboard by doing something like that ĤĴŝ >is still an >asshole. Whew! Thanks for the quick relief :-) >I'm not lying about his >beliefs, as far as I know. He has convinced you that the impression of himself which he is trying to present, is how you should believe he truly is. There is much sadness in this, even though it is a wonderful way to interact with other humans. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe he is as he tries to portray himself imo. The fact that he lies to me about my own beliefs is only reason for me to believe that he lies about his own. The arguments that he presents in his attacks against the suggestion that people contribute to decent AW, reinforce my beliefs that he's an "ARA". I have provided quite a few quotes showing that he agrees with "AR". No one has provided a single quote which shows he does not. If they exist, please present some example(s). >Even >though it kind of looks like he's >adamantly making claims, he's >really insisting that it's what you >must believe. He is often wrong >in this. Did you even read what he wrote? No? If you did, how the hell can you possibly believe that him explaining why he doesn't want people to consider contributing to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, to be really insisting that it's what I must believe? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> > wrote in message > >> .. . > > >> >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT > >> >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW > >> >> over "AR": > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> >> Message-ID: . net> > >> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >> >> > >> >> dh wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > >> >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > >> >> > >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . > >> >> > >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > >> >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > >> >> > >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > >> >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> > > >> >He writes that way when he's > >> >telling you what HE thinks that > >> >YOU believe, > >> > >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > >> consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > >> has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! > >> > >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? > >> Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The > >> Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly > >> why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest > >> *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want > >> me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock > >> over their elimination. > > > >I've received no suck-up emails. > >Our friend the gonad > > Dammit Nectar! You try to worry about > animals, but without warning refer to the > gonad as a "friend"? You could cause > someone to puke all over their keyboard > by doing something like that ĤĴŝ Sorry about that. I was being sarcastic. > >is still an > >asshole. > > Whew! Thanks for the quick relief :-) > > >I'm not lying about his > >beliefs, as far as I know. > > He has convinced you that the impression > of himself which he is trying to present, is how > you should believe he truly is. There is much > sadness in this, even though it is a wonderful > way to interact with other humans. There is > absolutely no reason at all to believe he is as > he tries to portray himself imo. The fact that > he lies to me about my own beliefs is only > reason for me to believe that he lies about his > own. The arguments that he presents in his > attacks against the suggestion that people > contribute to decent AW, reinforce my beliefs > that he's an "ARA". I have provided quite a > few quotes showing that he agrees with "AR". > No one has provided a single quote which > shows he does not. If they exist, please present > some example(s). I think those quotes were of him emphatically trying to claim what he thinks you believe, whether or not it's true. > >Even > >though it kind of looks like he's > >adamantly making claims, he's > >really insisting that it's what you > >must believe. He is often wrong > >in this. > > Did you even read what he wrote? No? > If you did, how the hell can you possibly > believe that him explaining why he doesn't > want people to consider contributing to decent > lives for livestock over the elimination objective, > to be really insisting that it's what I must believe? He claims to have nothing against better welfare for the animals. It's the vegans however that he is against along with their no-meat philosophy. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> > wrote in message > >> .. . > > >> >> The Gonad even *explained* why he does NOT > >> >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW > >> >> over "AR": > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> >> Message-ID: . net> > >> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >> >> > >> >> dh wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > >> >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > >> >> > >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . > >> >> > >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > >> >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > >> >> > >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > >> >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> > > >> >He writes that way when he's > >> >telling you what HE thinks that > >> >YOU believe, > >> > >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > >> consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > >> has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! > >> > >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? > >> Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The > >> Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly > >> why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest > >> *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want > >> me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock > >> over their elimination. > > > >I've received no suck-up emails. > >Our friend the gonad > > Dammit Nectar! You try to worry about > animals, but without warning refer to the > gonad as a "friend"? You could cause > someone to puke all over their keyboard > by doing something like that ĤĴŝ Sorry about that. I was being sarcastic. > >is still an > >asshole. > > Whew! Thanks for the quick relief :-) > > >I'm not lying about his > >beliefs, as far as I know. > > He has convinced you that the impression > of himself which he is trying to present, is how > you should believe he truly is. There is much > sadness in this, even though it is a wonderful > way to interact with other humans. There is > absolutely no reason at all to believe he is as > he tries to portray himself imo. The fact that > he lies to me about my own beliefs is only > reason for me to believe that he lies about his > own. The arguments that he presents in his > attacks against the suggestion that people > contribute to decent AW, reinforce my beliefs > that he's an "ARA". I have provided quite a > few quotes showing that he agrees with "AR". > No one has provided a single quote which > shows he does not. If they exist, please present > some example(s). I think those quotes were of him emphatically trying to claim what he thinks you believe, whether or not it's true. > >Even > >though it kind of looks like he's > >adamantly making claims, he's > >really insisting that it's what you > >must believe. He is often wrong > >in this. > > Did you even read what he wrote? No? > If you did, how the hell can you possibly > believe that him explaining why he doesn't > want people to consider contributing to decent > lives for livestock over the elimination objective, > to be really insisting that it's what I must believe? He claims to have nothing against better welfare for the animals. It's the vegans however that he is against along with their no-meat philosophy. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goober****wit David Harrison, the stupidest LYING goober cracker in the
whole state of Georgia, lied: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >> Goober****wit David Harrison, the stupidest LYING goober cracker in the whole state of Georgia, lied in message > .. . > >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:33:59 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> >Goober****wit David Harrison, the stupidest LYING goober cracker in the whole state of Georgia, lied in message > >> .. . > > >> >> Canoza even *explained* why he does NOT > >> >> want people to consider contributing to decent AW > >> >> over "AR": > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> >> Message-ID: . net> > >> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >> >> > >> >> dh wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > >> >> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective > >> >> > >> >> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison. . . > >> >> > >> >> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically > >> >> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live. > >> >> > >> >> 3. Because. . .no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > >> >> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. > >> >> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF That's not what I wrote, Goober****wit. You edited the quotes beyond recognition. > >> > > >> >He writes that way I didn't write "that way". Goober****wit mangled my actual quote. > >> >when he's > >> >telling you what HE thinks that > >> >YOU believe, > >> > >> HE EXPLAINED why HE does NOT want people to > >> consider contributing to decent AW over "AR", and it > >> has not a damn thing to do with what he thinks I believe!!! What I actually wrote has EVERYTHING to do with what you believe, Goober****wit. > >> > >> What has caused you to start lying to me all of a sudden? > >> Have they been sending you some suck up emails? The > >> Gonad tried that with me to start with, and that's exactly > >> why I quit posting my email address. I don't need dishonest > >> *******s like that trying to trick me into doing what they want > >> me to do, which is to stop promoting decent AW for livestock > >> over their elimination. > > > >I've received no suck-up emails. > >Our friend Rudy is still an > >asshole. I'm not lying about his > >beliefs, as far as I know. > > He has convinced you that the impression > of himself which he is trying to present, is how > you should believe he truly is. She sees that I'm not an "ara", Goober****wit; that's all. > >Even > >though it kind of looks like he's > >adamantly making claims, he's > >really insisting that it's what you > >must believe. He is often wrong > >in this. > > Did you even read what he wrote? She did. > No? Yes, she did. She doesn't like a lot of it, but she read it. You should read more of it, Goober****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > > k.net... > > > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > rthlink.net... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > thlink.net... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > > >>>>they aren't entirely his. You share in the > > >>>>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Not. > > >> > > >>It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared > > >>responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there > > >>and established. > > > > > > > > > That complicity is forced. > > > > It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% > > voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced > > food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You > > could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't > > want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an > > "option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but > > it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. > > It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say > > it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures > > does not mean it isn't an option. > > You know full well that it's > a forced complicity. No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY participation. Stop lying. > > > We've been through this is > > > right! > > > > You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have > > the option of living rural and growing your own food, > > you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. > > I'm not lying You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be there. Stop lying. > > >>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > > >>>that you're not the boss of me. > > >> > > >>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > > >>something based on it here in almost every post. > > > > > > > > > I only use that in response to > > > someone trying to boss me > > > around. > > > > You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you > > around when there is none. > > > > You're stuck. > > No. Yes. You are stuck in a defiant teenager mode of thinking. It's why your single and childless. > > >>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > > >>>>know. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>'Know' whatever you like. > > >> > > >>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > > >>really like that YOU know I know. > > > > > > > > > Nice try, but no, I'm not going > > > to tell you. > > > > You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to > > get you to tell me; I already know. > > Fine. Then end of topic. Nope. I am going to keep reminding you that I know, based on your mental and emotional defects, that you are a childless spinster. Rather quaint, this word 'spinster', but still useful. > > >>>>>>>A little hung up on > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) > > >>>> > > >>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Quite funny. > > >> > > >>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. > > > > > > > > > It must be miserable to be > > > you. > > > > Actually, it's great. > > Compared to what, though? Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. You are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager mode of thinking that cripples you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Mar 2005 10:16:05 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Scented Nectar wrote: [..] >> You know full well that it's a forced complicity. > >No Impuissance, then? SN, like all consumers are burdened by a "powerlessness revealed by an inability to act", http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=impuissance so it's hardly fair to blame her for what farmers do when in such a position. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > > > k.net... > > > > > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > > rthlink.net... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > > thlink.net... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>They aren't entirely his, and you've been shown why > > > >>>>they aren't entirely his. You share in the > > > >>>>responsibility, whether you like it or not. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Not. > > > >> > > > >>It doesn't matter if you don't like it. The shared > > > >>responsibility, leading to your complicity, is there > > > >>and established. > > > > > > > > > > > > That complicity is forced. > > > > > > It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% > > > voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced > > > food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You > > > could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't > > > want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an > > > "option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but > > > it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. > > > It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say > > > it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures > > > does not mean it isn't an option. > > > > You know full well that it's > > a forced complicity. > > No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY > participation. Stop lying. What's believed as a lie by you is what's believed as the truth by me. That's all this is. > > > > We've been through this is > > > > right! > > > > > > You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have > > > the option of living rural and growing your own food, > > > you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. > > > > I'm not lying > > You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't > WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy > urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be > there. Joining a commune is not on my list of to-do's. I'm stuck in the city until I retire. > Stop lying. > > > > > >>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > > > >>>that you're not the boss of me. > > > >> > > > >>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > > > >>something based on it here in almost every post. > > > > > > > > > > > > I only use that in response to > > > > someone trying to boss me > > > > around. > > > > > > You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you > > > around when there is none. > > > > > > You're stuck. > > > > No. > > Yes. You are stuck in a defiant teenager mode of thinking. It's why > your single and childless. Heheh. Still trying, huh? I'm still not going to confirm or deny any of your guesses. Nor am I going to be silly enough to make guesses about your marital and offspring status. > > > >>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > > > >>>>know. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>'Know' whatever you like. > > > >> > > > >>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > > > >>really like that YOU know I know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice try, but no, I'm not going > > > > to tell you. > > > > > > You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to > > > get you to tell me; I already know. > > > > Fine. Then end of topic. > > Nope. I am going to keep reminding you that I know, based on your > mental and emotional defects, that you are a childless spinster. > Rather quaint, this word 'spinster', but still useful. I think it's a neat word. It has a nice sound to it, you know? Some of my best friends are spinsters, so you're not insulting me as you hoped. > > > >>>>>>>A little hung up on > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Quite funny. > > > >> > > > >>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. > > > > > > > > > > > > It must be miserable to be > > > > you. > > > > > > Actually, it's great. > > > > Compared to what, though? > > Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful > son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. You > are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. > > You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager > mode of thinking that cripples you. Think and guess what you like. It makes no difference. What does your (possibly made up) family think about you calling people ****s and frequently wanting to discuss sodomizing children with broom handles? Do you do that to your son or something? Do you call people ****s where you work (if you work)? -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > oups.com... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message l.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% >>>>voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced >>>>food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You >>>>could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't >>>>want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an >>>>"option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but >>>>it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. >>>>It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say >>>>it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures >>>>does not mean it isn't an option. >>> >>>You know full well that it's >>>a forced complicity. >> >>No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>participation. Stop lying. > > > What's believed as a lie by you You are lying. Your complicity arises through your FULLY VOLUNTARY participation in market processes that lead to animal death. Nothing is compelling you to do it. You could live rural if you wanted to; you just don't want to. Stop lying about it. Admit it's your choice. >>>>>We've been through this is >>>>>right! >>>> >>>>You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have >>>>the option of living rural and growing your own food, >>>>you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. >>> >>>I'm not lying >> >>You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't >>WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy >>urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be >>there. > > > Joining a commune is not on my > list of to-do's. I'm stuck in the > city until I retire. You are not "stuck". You WANT to be there. Stop lying. This is wholly a matter of choice for you. >>Stop lying. Do it: stop lying. >>>>>>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is >>>>>>>that you're not the boss of me. >>>>>> >>>>>>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say >>>>>>something based on it here in almost every post. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I only use that in response to >>>>>someone trying to boss me >>>>>around. >>>> >>>>You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you >>>>around when there is none. >>>> >>>>You're stuck. >>> >>>No. >> >>Yes. You are stuck in a defiant teenager mode of thinking. It's why >>you're single and childless. > > > Heheh. Still trying, huh? I never was. I'm telling you what I know. >>>>>>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I >>>>>>>>know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>'Know' whatever you like. >>>>>> >>>>>>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I >>>>>>really like that YOU know I know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Nice try, but no, I'm not going >>>>>to tell you. >>>> >>>>You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to >>>>get you to tell me; I already know. >>> >>>Fine. Then end of topic. >> >>Nope. I am going to keep reminding you that I know, based on your >>mental and emotional defects, that you are a childless spinster. >>Rather quaint, this word 'spinster', but still useful. > > > I think it's a neat word. It > has a nice sound to it, you > know? Some of my best > friends are spinsters, so > you're not insulting me as > you hoped. Birds of a feather... >>>>>>>>>>>A little hung up on >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Quite funny. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It must be miserable to be >>>>>you. >>>> >>>>Actually, it's great. >>> >>>Compared to what, though? >> >>Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful >>son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. >>You are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. >> >>You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager >>mode of thinking that cripples you. > > > Think and guess what you like. I have ascertained the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > l.earthlink.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>It is NOT forced, you ****ing liar. It is 100% > >>>>voluntary. You CHOOSE to buy commercially produced > >>>>food, because you don't WANT to produce your own. You > >>>>could produce your own if you wanted to, but you don't > >>>>want to. That nonsense about living rural not being an > >>>>"option" for you is BULLSHIT. It IS an option, but > >>>>it's an unpalatable option; you don't want to do it. > >>>>It IS an option, however. You are LYING when you say > >>>>it isn't. Your distaste for giving up urban pleasures > >>>>does not mean it isn't an option. > >>> > >>>You know full well that it's > >>>a forced complicity. > >> > >>No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY > >>participation. Stop lying. > > > > > > What's believed as a lie by you > > You are lying. Your complicity arises through your > FULLY VOLUNTARY participation in market processes that > lead to animal death. Nothing is compelling you to do > it. You could live rural if you wanted to; you just > don't want to. Stop lying about it. Admit it's your > choice. No choice. > >>>>>We've been through this is > >>>>>right! > >>>> > >>>>You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have > >>>>the option of living rural and growing your own food, > >>>>you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. > >>> > >>>I'm not lying > >> > >>You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't > >>WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy > >>urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be > >>there. > > > > > > Joining a commune is not on my > > list of to-do's. I'm stuck in the > > city until I retire. > > You are not "stuck". You WANT to be there. Stop > lying. This is wholly a matter of choice for you. > > > >>Stop lying. > > Do it: stop lying. > > > >>>>>>>Yeah, that's all I ever think about is > >>>>>>>that you're not the boss of me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It clearly is something you think about a LOT. You say > >>>>>>something based on it here in almost every post. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I only use that in response to > >>>>>someone trying to boss me > >>>>>around. > >>>> > >>>>You use it all the time, seeing attempts to boss you > >>>>around when there is none. > >>>> > >>>>You're stuck. > >>> > >>>No. > >> > >>Yes. You are stuck in a defiant teenager mode of thinking. It's why > >>you're single and childless. > > > > > > Heheh. Still trying, huh? > > I never was. I'm telling you what I know. > > > >>>>>>>>Nope. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that I > >>>>>>>>know. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>'Know' whatever you like. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I know that you are a spinster and childless, and I > >>>>>>really like that YOU know I know. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Nice try, but no, I'm not going > >>>>>to tell you. > >>>> > >>>>You don't need to tell me. I know. I'm not trying to > >>>>get you to tell me; I already know. > >>> > >>>Fine. Then end of topic. > >> > >>Nope. I am going to keep reminding you that I know, based on your > >>mental and emotional defects, that you are a childless spinster. > >>Rather quaint, this word 'spinster', but still useful. > > > > > > I think it's a neat word. It > > has a nice sound to it, you > > know? Some of my best > > friends are spinsters, so > > you're not insulting me as > > you hoped. > > Birds of a feather... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>A little hung up on > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>You are an asshole: a stubborn, pig-headed asshole. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Oink oink (fusspot) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Not funny. It's actually a sad commentary on you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Quite funny. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Not funny in the least. It's a sad commentary on you. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>It must be miserable to be > >>>>>you. > >>>> > >>>>Actually, it's great. > >>> > >>>Compared to what, though? > >> > >>Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful > >>son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. > >>You are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. > >> > >>You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager > >>mode of thinking that cripples you. > > > > > > Think and guess what you like. > > I have ascertained the truth. All you know is that I won't confirm or deny it, since I don't think it's the business of strangers on the internet. Knowing that I won't tell leaves you to believe whatever you want. You are doing it repeatedly, so much to the point of obsession, that I think you protest too much. You're not really sure. -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message egroups.com... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>>>participation. Stop lying. >>> >>> >>>What's believed as a lie by you >> >>You are lying. Your complicity arises through your >>FULLY VOLUNTARY participation in market processes that >>lead to animal death. Nothing is compelling you to do >>it. You could live rural if you wanted to; you just >>don't want to. Stop lying about it. Admit it's your >>choice. > > > No choice. All the choice: you CHOOSE to live where you live. No third party, no outside force makes you live where you live and work as you work. You do them by YOUR choice. >>>>>>>We've been through this is >>>>>>>right! >>>>>> >>>>>>You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have >>>>>>the option of living rural and growing your own food, >>>>>>you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not lying >>>> >>>>You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't >>>>WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy >>>>urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be >>>>there. >>> >>> >>>Joining a commune is not on my >>>list of to-do's. I'm stuck in the >>>city until I retire. >> >>You are not "stuck". You WANT to be there. Stop >>lying. This is wholly a matter of choice for you. YOUR choice. >>>>>>>It must be miserable to be >>>>>>>you. >>>>>> >>>>>>Actually, it's great. >>>>> >>>>>Compared to what, though? >>>> >>>>Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful >>>>son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. >>>>You are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. >>>> >>>>You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager >>>>mode of thinking that cripples you. >>> >>> >>>Think and guess what you like. >> >>I have ascertained the truth. > > > All you know is ....is what I know: that you are a childless old maid. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message egroups.com... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>No, WE ALL know that it's complicity through your FULLY VOLUNTARY >>>>participation. Stop lying. >>> >>> >>>What's believed as a lie by you >> >>You are lying. Your complicity arises through your >>FULLY VOLUNTARY participation in market processes that >>lead to animal death. Nothing is compelling you to do >>it. You could live rural if you wanted to; you just >>don't want to. Stop lying about it. Admit it's your >>choice. > > > No choice. All the choice: you CHOOSE to live where you live. No third party, no outside force makes you live where you live and work as you work. You do them by YOUR choice. >>>>>>>We've been through this is >>>>>>>right! >>>>>> >>>>>>You were lying then, and you're lying now: you DO have >>>>>>the option of living rural and growing your own food, >>>>>>you just don't WANT to do it. Stop lying. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not lying >>>> >>>>You ARE lying. You DO have the option of living rural, you just don't >>>>WANT to do it. There is no "compulsion" keeping you in your cushy >>>>urban surrounding. The thing keeping you there is your WISH to be >>>>there. >>> >>> >>>Joining a commune is not on my >>>list of to-do's. I'm stuck in the >>>city until I retire. >> >>You are not "stuck". You WANT to be there. Stop >>lying. This is wholly a matter of choice for you. YOUR choice. >>>>>>>It must be miserable to be >>>>>>>you. >>>>>> >>>>>>Actually, it's great. >>>>> >>>>>Compared to what, though? >>>> >>>>Certainly compared to being YOU. I'm married, have the most wonderful >>>>son in the world, and do meaningful and reasonably well paid work. >>>>You are a spinster, childless, and do marginal work. >>>> >>>>You're also a mental/emotional defective, stuck in a defiant teenager >>>>mode of thinking that cripples you. >>> >>> >>>Think and guess what you like. >> >>I have ascertained the truth. > > > All you know is ....is what I know: that you are a childless old maid. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More troll lies | General Cooking | |||
| More troll lies | General Cooking | |||
| Sur Lies? | Winemaking | |||
| OT : Oprah lies again | General Cooking | |||
| Dutch lies blatanly | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
