On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:10:54 -0500, wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:50:08 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:01 -0500, wrote:
>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:46:53 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The quotes Harrison provides here from others are mostly
>>>>only half-quotes to intentionally misrepresent his opponents,
>>>
>>> That's what the Gonad does to me all the time, and you
>>>know it.
>>
>>Then it should be easy for you to find some examples.
>>Get busy. Provide examples where Jon has intentionally
>>misquoted you.

I just knew you'd fail to produce any, Harrison. You
can't provide a single example, yet nearly every quote
you've produced here from Jon is a misquote, and even
when you've been shown to have misquoted him you
go on to use the very same misquote again. Pathetic.

>>[..]
>>>>and while I think Jon deserves the nuisance value those
>>>>misquotes bring him it isn't fair on you while Harrison
>>>>continues to use you and deceive you in this way.
>>>
>>> She has pointed out lies the Gonad tells about me.
>>
>>Most of what he claims to know concerning your private
>>life and position in society, such as job status and education
>>are probably lies and written to merely annoy you. However,
>>despite his off-topic insults he's never lied about your position
>>here on usenet by intentionally misquoting you to misrepresent
>>your argument.
>
> That's a lie.

Yet time after time you fail to provide any examples.

>>You, on the other hand leave off important
>>qualifiers from Jon's quotes to make it seem that he agrees
>>with whatever point he actually rejects.
>
> 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. Just who do you think you're fooling?

>>>>Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
>>>>yet to see him lie about Harrison's position
>>>
>>> That's a lie and we both know it.
>>
>>No, Harrison; it's not a lie.
>
> Yes it is, and we both do know it.

Then, for the last time, PROVIDE A ****ING
EXAMPLE, you lying jerk-off.

> 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. As far as
consuming animal products, I
think they do, 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. Only
they really know the truth about
themselves. They definitely
don't claim to be ARAs or to
not consume animal products.

> >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.

> >When he's wrong about
> >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to
> >believe them.
>
> And when he agrees with them, he uses
> them to oppose the suggestion that people
> choose decent AW over "AR", as he
> constantly does.
>
> >> >but it
> >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch
> >> >tell people that they MUST believe this
> >> >or that. It comes across sounding like
> >> >they believe it themselves and are trying
> >> >to convince others.
> >>
> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into
> >> believing they use arguments they don't
> >> agree with. If you believe they would, then
> >> please explain why.
> >
> >I think they want to set up an extremist
> >view so that they can knock it down
> >as extremist. They like to jump on
> >anyone who claims concern for the
> >animals and tell them they are not
> >doing it right. They like to say that
> >if you really believed such 'n such,
> >you'd do this or that. That's all my
> >experience with them so far.
>
> The Gonad has shown what he wants people to
> believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people
> to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he
> says otherwise.

True, even though he knows my
main motivation vegan-wise is
dietary and health based rather
than the original meaning, he
frequently tells me what I 'must'
believe, and it's a lie, not what
I really believe. Either that or
he actually believes himself
when he makes these claims.

> >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first
> >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've
> >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive.
> >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for
> >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the
> >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or
> >> >> misquote from Harrison.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice
> >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces,
> >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find
> >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've
> >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one
> >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan
> >> >> to even those scores up a bit.
> >> >
> >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she
> >> >isn't. He called me marginally
> >> >employed and I'm not. Some
> >> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's
> >> >not lying, then he really believes
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would
> >> have to be if he's not lying.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> >He does dishonest things with
> >> >people's quotes but that's only
> >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with
> >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid
> >> >spectator.
> >>
> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's
> >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no
> >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't
> >> really have anything against him until he lied about
> >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the
> >> Gonad.
> >
> >I'm stepping out from the fight between
> >you and Derek. You're both ok in my
> >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have
> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't
> >believe him to lie, then that's just the
> >way it is.
>
> There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when
> the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you
> know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it.
> So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do
> or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying
> about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So
> far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't
> wonder why Derek lies about this stuff.

I think that Derek believes what
he's saying is true, so for him it's
not a lie. As far as Jon/Rudy goes
I'm not backing away from what
I've said about/to him. I do though
wonder if he's lying or not about
you breeding fighting cocks. If
it is true, then that's something
we'll have to agree to disagree
on.

> >I have often seen him
> >change a person's quotes in order
> >to change the context and meaning.
> >That's as good as a lie, the way he
> >does it. He has many times claimed
> >I believe things I don't.
>
> All you have to do is point them out, and I would love
> to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict
> Derek will take his side.

I usually do point him out and
debate it with him when it
happens. So far Derek has
not taken his side, although
if he did, that would be his
choice to do so. I don't agree
100% with anyone.

> >Those are
> >lies too. Unless, of course, in the
> >unlikely situation of him actually
> >believing what he types. Then it's
> >not technically a lie, I guess.



--
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 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. As far as
consuming animal products, I
think they do, 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. Only
they really know the truth about
themselves. They definitely
don't claim to be ARAs or to
not consume animal products.

> >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.

> >When he's wrong about
> >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to
> >believe them.
>
> And when he agrees with them, he uses
> them to oppose the suggestion that people
> choose decent AW over "AR", as he
> constantly does.
>
> >> >but it
> >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch
> >> >tell people that they MUST believe this
> >> >or that. It comes across sounding like
> >> >they believe it themselves and are trying
> >> >to convince others.
> >>
> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into
> >> believing they use arguments they don't
> >> agree with. If you believe they would, then
> >> please explain why.
> >
> >I think they want to set up an extremist
> >view so that they can knock it down
> >as extremist. They like to jump on
> >anyone who claims concern for the
> >animals and tell them they are not
> >doing it right. They like to say that
> >if you really believed such 'n such,
> >you'd do this or that. That's all my
> >experience with them so far.
>
> The Gonad has shown what he wants people to
> believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people
> to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he
> says otherwise.

True, even though he knows my
main motivation vegan-wise is
dietary and health based rather
than the original meaning, he
frequently tells me what I 'must'
believe, and it's a lie, not what
I really believe. Either that or
he actually believes himself
when he makes these claims.

> >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first
> >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've
> >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive.
> >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for
> >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the
> >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or
> >> >> misquote from Harrison.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice
> >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces,
> >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find
> >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've
> >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one
> >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan
> >> >> to even those scores up a bit.
> >> >
> >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she
> >> >isn't. He called me marginally
> >> >employed and I'm not. Some
> >> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's
> >> >not lying, then he really believes
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would
> >> have to be if he's not lying.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> >He does dishonest things with
> >> >people's quotes but that's only
> >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with
> >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid
> >> >spectator.
> >>
> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's
> >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no
> >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't
> >> really have anything against him until he lied about
> >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the
> >> Gonad.
> >
> >I'm stepping out from the fight between
> >you and Derek. You're both ok in my
> >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have
> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't
> >believe him to lie, then that's just the
> >way it is.
>
> There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when
> the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you
> know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it.
> So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do
> or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying
> about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So
> far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't
> wonder why Derek lies about this stuff.

I think that Derek believes what
he's saying is true, so for him it's
not a lie. As far as Jon/Rudy goes
I'm not backing away from what
I've said about/to him. I do though
wonder if he's lying or not about
you breeding fighting cocks. If
it is true, then that's something
we'll have to agree to disagree
on.

> >I have often seen him
> >change a person's quotes in order
> >to change the context and meaning.
> >That's as good as a lie, the way he
> >does it. He has many times claimed
> >I believe things I don't.
>
> All you have to do is point them out, and I would love
> to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict
> Derek will take his side.

I usually do point him out and
debate it with him when it
happens. So far Derek has
not taken his side, although
if he did, that would be his
choice to do so. I don't agree
100% with anyone.

> >Those are
> >lies too. Unless, of course, in the
> >unlikely situation of him actually
> >believing what he types. Then it's
> >not technically a lie, I guess.



--
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 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
>> >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all
>> >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be
>> >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing
>> >> >> nothing to help put the record straight.
>> >> >
>> >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH
>> >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm
>> >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen
>> >> >all of the past posts. His present
>> >> >position considers the animals,
>> >> >even though it's not mentioned in
>> >> >every sentence.
>> >>
>> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we
>> >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is
>> >> that we should consider future non-existent animals.
>> >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't
>> >> consider animals, he is dead right.
>> >>
>> >> >He frequently
>> >> >mentions about some benefitting
>> >> >and some not. Jon is trying to
>> >> >convince me that DH doesn't
>> >> >care about the animals welfare.
>> >>
>> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to
>> >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for
>> >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other
>> >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and
>> >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose
>> >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting
>> >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument
>> >> here, not animal welfare itself.
>> >>
>> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the
>> >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking
>> >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot
>> >> benefit from any kind of welfare.
>> >>
>> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct;
>> >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison
>> >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal
>> >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed
>> >> out to him many times.
>> >>
>> >> [start]
>> >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you
>> >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him
>> >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've
>> >> > >> >strapped on to them?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this!
>> >> >
>> >> > I've answered the same thing in the past.
>> >>
>> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting
>> >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread.
>> >>
>> >> >The cocks can quit
>> >> > fighting whenever they want.
>> >>
>> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to
>> >> fight, before they're slashed?
>> >>
>> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have
>> >> > no such option.
>> >>
>> >> Food doesn't get to run away.
>> >>
>> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion?
>> >>
>> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite.
>> >> [end]
>> >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw
>> >>
>> >> >So far, from what I've read, I
>> >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's
>> >> >either wrong or lying.
>> >
>> >I disagree with the raising of fighting
>> >cocks. I think they live miserable
>> >lives and suffer at death. If DH does
>> >breed them, then I'm against it, but
>> >like I said, I don't agree 100% with
>> >anyone.
>>
>> Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight,
>> so if we go back to your original statement where
>> you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position
>> on animal welfare;
>>
>> "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't
>> care about the animals welfare. So far, from
>> what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's
>> either wrong or lying."
>>
>> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>
>If he really does breed them,

He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
Are you big enough to do that?

>then I
>am very against that and am willing
>to debate the issue.

No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

>I consider
>those chickens to be in the category
>of miserable lives.

And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
do you have anything to say here AT ALL?

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
>> >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all
>> >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be
>> >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing
>> >> >> nothing to help put the record straight.
>> >> >
>> >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH
>> >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm
>> >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen
>> >> >all of the past posts. His present
>> >> >position considers the animals,
>> >> >even though it's not mentioned in
>> >> >every sentence.
>> >>
>> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we
>> >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is
>> >> that we should consider future non-existent animals.
>> >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't
>> >> consider animals, he is dead right.
>> >>
>> >> >He frequently
>> >> >mentions about some benefitting
>> >> >and some not. Jon is trying to
>> >> >convince me that DH doesn't
>> >> >care about the animals welfare.
>> >>
>> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to
>> >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for
>> >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other
>> >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and
>> >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose
>> >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting
>> >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument
>> >> here, not animal welfare itself.
>> >>
>> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the
>> >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking
>> >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot
>> >> benefit from any kind of welfare.
>> >>
>> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct;
>> >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison
>> >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal
>> >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed
>> >> out to him many times.
>> >>
>> >> [start]
>> >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you
>> >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him
>> >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've
>> >> > >> >strapped on to them?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this!
>> >> >
>> >> > I've answered the same thing in the past.
>> >>
>> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting
>> >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread.
>> >>
>> >> >The cocks can quit
>> >> > fighting whenever they want.
>> >>
>> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to
>> >> fight, before they're slashed?
>> >>
>> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have
>> >> > no such option.
>> >>
>> >> Food doesn't get to run away.
>> >>
>> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion?
>> >>
>> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite.
>> >> [end]
>> >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw
>> >>
>> >> >So far, from what I've read, I
>> >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's
>> >> >either wrong or lying.
>> >
>> >I disagree with the raising of fighting
>> >cocks. I think they live miserable
>> >lives and suffer at death. If DH does
>> >breed them, then I'm against it, but
>> >like I said, I don't agree 100% with
>> >anyone.
>>
>> Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight,
>> so if we go back to your original statement where
>> you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position
>> on animal welfare;
>>
>> "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't
>> care about the animals welfare. So far, from
>> what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's
>> either wrong or lying."
>>
>> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>
>If he really does breed them,

He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
Are you big enough to do that?

>then I
>am very against that and am willing
>to debate the issue.

No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

>I consider
>those chickens to be in the category
>of miserable lives.

And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
do you have anything to say here AT ALL?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented
> wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
> >> >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all
> >> >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be
> >> >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing
> >> >> >> nothing to help put the record straight.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH
> >> >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm
> >> >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen
> >> >> >all of the past posts. His present
> >> >> >position considers the animals,
> >> >> >even though it's not mentioned in
> >> >> >every sentence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we
> >> >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is
> >> >> that we should consider future non-existent animals.
> >> >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't
> >> >> consider animals, he is dead right.
> >> >>
> >> >> >He frequently
> >> >> >mentions about some benefitting
> >> >> >and some not. Jon is trying to
> >> >> >convince me that DH doesn't
> >> >> >care about the animals welfare.
> >> >>
> >> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to
> >> >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for
> >> >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other
> >> >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and
> >> >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose
> >> >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting
> >> >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument
> >> >> here, not animal welfare itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the
> >> >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking
> >> >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot
> >> >> benefit from any kind of welfare.
> >> >>
> >> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct;
> >> >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison
> >> >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal
> >> >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed
> >> >> out to him many times.
> >> >>
> >> >> [start]
> >> >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you
> >> >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him
> >> >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've
> >> >> > >> >strapped on to them?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've answered the same thing in the past.
> >> >>
> >> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting
> >> >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The cocks can quit
> >> >> > fighting whenever they want.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to
> >> >> fight, before they're slashed?
> >> >>
> >> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have
> >> >> > no such option.
> >> >>
> >> >> Food doesn't get to run away.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion?
> >> >>
> >> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite.
> >> >> [end]
> >> >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw
> >> >>
> >> >> >So far, from what I've read, I
> >> >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's
> >> >> >either wrong or lying.
> >> >
> >> >I disagree with the raising of fighting
> >> >cocks. I think they live miserable
> >> >lives and suffer at death. If DH does
> >> >breed them, then I'm against it, but
> >> >like I said, I don't agree 100% with
> >> >anyone.
> >>
> >> Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight,
> >> so if we go back to your original statement where
> >> you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position
> >> on animal welfare;
> >>
> >> "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't
> >> care about the animals welfare. So far, from
> >> what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's
> >> either wrong or lying."
> >>
> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >
> >If he really does breed them,
>
> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> Are you big enough to do that?

Even though he wasn't lying after
all, I won't apologize. He's too nasty
with the insults for me to consider
his feelings the way I would with
most people. It's turning out that
DH and myself have different ideas
about what constitutes a good
life. It's still possible that he
believes game cocks lead a good
life, in which case I have way
different standards regarding
that.

> >then I
> >am very against that and am willing
> >to debate the issue.
>
> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

Nothing wrong with that. It's not
sitting on the fence, it's simply not
being bothered to debate it
further.

> >I consider
> >those chickens to be in the category
> >of miserable lives.
>
> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?

I disagree with him regarding gaming
birds. So what?


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

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:30:15 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:38:12 -0500, "Scented
> wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
> >> >> >> yet to see him lie about Harrison's position, and that is all
> >> >> >> I'm trying to point out to you in this thread. It wouldn't be
> >> >> >> right if I were to let Harrison continue lying while doing
> >> >> >> nothing to help put the record straight.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As far as Jon claiming that DH
> >> >> >didn't consider the animals, I'm
> >> >> >still fairly new here and haven't seen
> >> >> >all of the past posts. His present
> >> >> >position considers the animals,
> >> >> >even though it's not mentioned in
> >> >> >every sentence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Everyone's position here considers animals, else we
> >> >> wouldn't be posting here, but Harrison's position is
> >> >> that we should consider future non-existent animals.
> >> >> So when Jon says that Harrison's position doesn't
> >> >> consider animals, he is dead right.
> >> >>
> >> >> >He frequently
> >> >> >mentions about some benefitting
> >> >> >and some not. Jon is trying to
> >> >> >convince me that DH doesn't
> >> >> >care about the animals welfare.
> >> >>
> >> >> Though Jon will never accept that animals ought to
> >> >> be afforded rights, he does insist on and argue for
> >> >> very high welfare standards. Harrison, on the other
> >> >> hand is on record for breeding fighting cocks and
> >> >> believes that had he not bred them for that purpose
> >> >> they wouldn't have got to experience life. Getting
> >> >> animals to experience life is Harrison's only argument
> >> >> here, not animal welfare itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, it could be that Jon is trying to tell you that the
> >> >> non-existent entities Harrison refers to when talking
> >> >> about animals, aren't animals yet and therefore cannot
> >> >> benefit from any kind of welfare.
> >> >>
> >> >> These two considerations show that Jon is correct;
> >> >> Harrison doesn't care about animal welfare. Harrison
> >> >> cannot breed cocks to fight while promoting animal
> >> >> welfare at the same time, and this has been pointed
> >> >> out to him many times.
> >> >>
> >> >> [start]
> >> >> > >> >You're in favor of cock fighting. Tell me, do you
> >> >> > >> >"stun" one bird before the other one tears into him
> >> >> > >> >with its claws, or worse, with the razors you've
> >> >> > >> >strapped on to them?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Hey Gutless Dave! You forgot to answer this!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've answered the same thing in the past.
> >> >>
> >> >> No you didn't. I didn't ask you if you stunned the fighting
> >> >> cocks before they were slashed up, until this thread.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The cocks can quit
> >> >> > fighting whenever they want.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you kill them. Do you stun the ones who stay to
> >> >> fight, before they're slashed?
> >> >>
> >> >> >The birds in a slaughterhouse have
> >> >> > no such option.
> >> >>
> >> >> Food doesn't get to run away.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why bring it up in this discussion?
> >> >>
> >> >> To expose you as a sick hypocrite.
> >> >> [end]
> >> >> Edwin 17 Nov 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5hopw
> >> >>
> >> >> >So far, from what I've read, I
> >> >> >have to disagree with Jon. He's
> >> >> >either wrong or lying.
> >> >
> >> >I disagree with the raising of fighting
> >> >cocks. I think they live miserable
> >> >lives and suffer at death. If DH does
> >> >breed them, then I'm against it, but
> >> >like I said, I don't agree 100% with
> >> >anyone.
> >>
> >> Harrison openly admits that he breeds them to fight,
> >> so if we go back to your original statement where
> >> you claimed Jon was lying about Harrison's position
> >> on animal welfare;
> >>
> >> "Jon is trying to convince me that DH doesn't
> >> care about the animals welfare. So far, from
> >> what I've read, I have to disagree with Jon. He's
> >> either wrong or lying."
> >>
> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >
> >If he really does breed them,
>
> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> Are you big enough to do that?

Even though he wasn't lying after
all, I won't apologize. He's too nasty
with the insults for me to consider
his feelings the way I would with
most people. It's turning out that
DH and myself have different ideas
about what constitutes a good
life. It's still possible that he
believes game cocks lead a good
life, in which case I have way
different standards regarding
that.

> >then I
> >am very against that and am willing
> >to debate the issue.
>
> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

Nothing wrong with that. It's not
sitting on the fence, it's simply not
being bothered to debate it
further.

> >I consider
> >those chickens to be in the category
> >of miserable lives.
>
> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?

I disagree with him regarding gaming
birds. So what?


--
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 Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
[..]
>> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>> >
>> >If he really does breed them,
>>
>> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
>> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
>> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
>> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
>> Are you big enough to do that?
>
>Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.

An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
justification or defence of something. Such an apology
could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
Harrison's argument.

>He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
>feelings the way I would with most people.

He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.

>It's turning out that
>DH and myself have different ideas
>about what constitutes a good
>life.

Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
opposite is true.

>It's still possible that he
>believes game cocks lead a good
>life, in which case I have way
>different standards regarding
>that.
>
>> >then I
>> >am very against that and am willing
>> >to debate the issue.
>>
>> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
>> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
>
>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
>being bothered to debate it
>further.

But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
short, you're sitting on the fence.

>> >I consider
>> >those chickens to be in the category
>> >of miserable lives.
>>
>> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
>> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
>> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
>> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
>
>I disagree with him regarding gaming
>birds. So what?

So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
instance?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> [..]
> >> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >> >
> >> >If he really does breed them,
> >>
> >> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> >> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> >> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> >> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> >> Are you big enough to do that?
> >
> >Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
>
> An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
> defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
> your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
> from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
> justification or defence of something. Such an apology
> could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
> and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
> to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
> However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
> Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
> So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
> on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
> referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
> Harrison's argument.

In that form, I could toss him an
apology. You are right that his
real lies elsewhere swayed me.

> >He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
> >feelings the way I would with most people.
>
> He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
> to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
> his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
> Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
> me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.

I laugh too. The whole thing is
fun enough to keep me coming
back, long after I originally came
to share my recipe thing.

> >It's turning out that
> >DH and myself have different ideas
> >about what constitutes a good
> >life.
>
> Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> opposite is true.

The gaming birds are especially
disturbing, and I don't fear losing
an ally enough to not be willing to
debate it with him. While it's
always nice having allies, I don't
expect anyone here to agree
with me 100%.

> >It's still possible that he
> >believes game cocks lead a good
> >life, in which case I have way
> >different standards regarding
> >that.
> >
> >> >then I
> >> >am very against that and am willing
> >> >to debate the issue.
> >>
> >> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >
> >Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >being bothered to debate it
> >further.
>
> But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> short, you're sitting on the fence.

It's more like 'I rest my case'.
Sometimes, when all I have
left are the same arguments
as I've already stated, I figure
why go to the trouble of
repeating myself. Often
I'll go to that trouble, but
sometimes not.

> >> >I consider
> >> >those chickens to be in the category
> >> >of miserable lives.
> >>
> >> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> >> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> >> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> >> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
> >
> >I disagree with him regarding gaming
> >birds. So what?
>
> So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
> that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
> now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
> instance?

My opinion has lowered of DH due
to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
that sometimes doesn't differentiate
between a good life and a bad one
except in some of his posts. That
part makes me wonder what his
current position really is, the seeing
of good and bad, or the lumping
them all in as good. Was it a lie
when he told me that he considers
quality of life? 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.


--
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 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?

>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."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800
Message-ID: >

I am an animal rights believer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>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.

>> >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.

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >When he's wrong about
>> >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to
>> >believe them.
>>
>> And when he agrees with them, he uses
>> them to oppose the suggestion that people
>> choose decent AW over "AR", as he
>> constantly does.
>>
>> >> >but it
>> >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch
>> >> >tell people that they MUST believe this
>> >> >or that. It comes across sounding like
>> >> >they believe it themselves and are trying
>> >> >to convince others.
>> >>
>> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into
>> >> believing they use arguments they don't
>> >> agree with. If you believe they would, then
>> >> please explain why.
>> >
>> >I think they want to set up an extremist
>> >view so that they can knock it down
>> >as extremist. They like to jump on
>> >anyone who claims concern for the
>> >animals and tell them they are not
>> >doing it right. They like to say that
>> >if you really believed such 'n such,
>> >you'd do this or that. That's all my
>> >experience with them so far.
>>
>> The Gonad has shown what he wants people to
>> believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people
>> to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he
>> says otherwise.
>
>True, even though he knows my
>main motivation vegan-wise is
>dietary and health based rather
>than the original meaning, he
>frequently tells me what I 'must'
>believe, and it's a lie, not what
>I really believe. Either that or
>he actually believes himself
>when he makes these claims.

He probably believes some of his lies, but no one
can convince me he's stupid enough to believe all
of them.

>> >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first
>> >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've
>> >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive.
>> >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for
>> >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the
>> >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or
>> >> >> misquote from Harrison.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice
>> >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces,
>> >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find
>> >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've
>> >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one
>> >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan
>> >> >> to even those scores up a bit.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she
>> >> >isn't. He called me marginally
>> >> >employed and I'm not. Some
>> >> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's
>> >> >not lying, then he really believes
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would
>> >> have to be if he's not lying.
>> >
>> >True.
>> >
>> >> >He does dishonest things with
>> >> >people's quotes but that's only
>> >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with
>> >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid
>> >> >spectator.
>> >>
>> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's
>> >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no
>> >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't
>> >> really have anything against him until he lied about
>> >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the
>> >> Gonad.
>> >
>> >I'm stepping out from the fight between
>> >you and Derek. You're both ok in my
>> >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have
>> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't
>> >believe him to lie, then that's just the
>> >way it is.
>>
>> There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when
>> the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you
>> know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it.
>> So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do
>> or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying
>> about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So
>> far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't
>> wonder why Derek lies about this stuff.
>
>I think that Derek believes what
>he's saying is true,

I damn sure don't.

>so for him it's
>not a lie.

Yes it is.

>As far as Jon/Rudy goes
>I'm not backing away from what
>I've said about/to him. I do though
>wonder if he's lying or not about
>you breeding fighting cocks.

I used to raise them, so I know a lot
about them. The Gonad has never been
around any type of farm animals, and has
no clue what he's trying to discuss.

>If
>it is true, then that's something
>we'll have to agree to disagree
>on.
>
>> >I have often seen him
>> >change a person's quotes in order
>> >to change the context and meaning.
>> >That's as good as a lie, the way he
>> >does it. He has many times claimed
>> >I believe things I don't.
>>
>> All you have to do is point them out, and I would love
>> to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict
>> Derek will take his side.
>
>I usually do point him out and
>debate it with him when it
>happens. So far Derek has
>not taken his side, although
>if he did, that would be his
>choice to do so. I don't agree
>100% with anyone.

Derek has proven himself to be no better than
the Gonad.

>> >Those are
>> >lies too. Unless, of course, in the
>> >unlikely situation of him actually
>> >believing what he types. Then it's
>> >not technically a lie, I guess.

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Wilson Woods >
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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and he admittedly wants people to change it by ending it, instead of
changing it in some other way:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
because he admittedly believes that wanting farm animals not to exist
is a step towards creating a more just world.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: . net>

There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm
animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more
just world.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Just who do you think you're fooling?
>
>>>>>Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
>>>>>yet to see him lie about Harrison's position
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie and we both know it.
>>>
>>>No, Harrison; it's not a lie.
>>
>> Yes it is, and we both do know it.
>
>Then, for the last time, PROVIDE A ****ING
>EXAMPLE, you lying jerk-off.

Okay, you lying gonadal ass licking scum. But you'll somehow
lie about it too, as you have proven that you like to do. The
Gonad lies and says I don't consider quality of life, but at one
time he was honest enough to admit that I do:
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: ****wit's big chance
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:21:35 GMT

Do *not* write your usual crapola about "life can have
a positive or negative blah blah blah..."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and the fact that I've many times pointed out that some farm
animals benefit from farming and some don't, is proof that I
consider it as well. Now let's see what lies you tell trying to
support your lying brother.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
>
> > wrote:
>
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
>
> > wrote:
>
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>If he really does breed them,
>>>>
>>>>He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
>>>>that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
>>>>your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
>>>>apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
>>>>Are you big enough to do that?
>>>
>>>Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
>>
>>An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
>>defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
>>your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
>>from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
>>justification or defence of something. Such an apology
>>could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
>>and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
>>to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
>>However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
>>Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
>>So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
>>on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
>>referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
>>Harrison's argument.
>
>
> In that form, I could toss him an
> apology. You are right that his
> real lies elsewhere swayed me.

There weren't any "real lies". You ought to be able to
tell when I'm being serious and when I'm just 'avin a
larf. Which do you think was in effect when I was
writing about your fat pimply ass?



>>>It's turning out that
>>>DH and myself have different ideas
>>>about what constitutes a good
>>>life.
>>
>>Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
>>has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
>>produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
>>commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
>>Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
>>him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
>>opposite is true.
>
>
> The gaming birds are especially
> disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> an ally enough to not be willing to
> debate it with him.

What are you going to debate with him? He's going to
come back with his same old one-note song: "at least
the birds 'get to experience life'"; in other words,
that existence _per se_ is a benefit to them (compared
with never existing.)

> While it's
> always nice having allies, I don't
> expect anyone here to agree
> with me 100%.
>
>
>>>It's still possible that he
>>>believes game cocks lead a good
>>>life, in which case I have way
>>>different standards regarding
>>>that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>then I
>>>>>am very against that and am willing
>>>>>to debate the issue.
>>>>
>>>>No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
>>>>say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
>>>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
>>>being bothered to debate it
>>>further.
>>
>>But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
>>class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
>>it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
>>whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
>>short, you're sitting on the fence.
>
>
> It's more like 'I rest my case'.

You really don't have a case, because you really don't
believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
your own.

> Sometimes, when all I have
> left are the same arguments
> as I've already stated,

You mean the same tired, juvenile, "you're not the boss
of me!" attitude...

> I figure why go to the trouble of
> repeating myself. Often
> I'll go to that trouble, but
> sometimes not.
>
>
>>>>>I consider
>>>>>those chickens to be in the category
>>>>>of miserable lives.
>>>>
>>>>And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
>>>>them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
>>>>welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
>>>>do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
>>>
>>>I disagree with him regarding gaming
>>>birds. So what?
>>
>>So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
>>that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
>>now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
>>instance?
>
>
> My opinion has lowered of DH due
> to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
> that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> between a good life and a bad one
> except in some of his posts.

He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
lives" is just a tactic.


> That part makes me wonder what his
> current position really is, the seeing
> of good and bad, or the lumping
> them all in as good. Was it a lie
> when he told me that he considers
> quality of life?

Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goober****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goober****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goober****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goober****wit - 10/19/1999

Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Goober****wit - 03/22/2005

ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
of life consideration.

> 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.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:22:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> [..]
>> >> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>> >> >
>> >> >If he really does breed them,
>> >>
>> >> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
>> >> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
>> >> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
>> >> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
>> >> Are you big enough to do that?
>> >
>> >Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
>>
>> An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
>> defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
>> your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
>> from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
>> justification or defence of something. Such an apology
>> could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
>> and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
>> to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
>> However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
>> Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
>> So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
>> on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
>> referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
>> Harrison's argument.
>
>In that form, I could toss him an
>apology. You are right that his
>real lies elsewhere swayed me.

If you ever get a spare hour for a really good read on the
subject of apology, go to this link
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
and read Socrates' Defence. It's a fairly long read, but I
guarantee you won't be able to stop once you start it.

>> >He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
>> >feelings the way I would with most people.
>>
>> He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
>> to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
>> his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
>> Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
>> me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.
>
>I laugh too.

Anyone with an ounce of humour in them just has to
laugh at his way of insulting people ,,,,,,,,,,, sometimes.
Even my own kids laugh at his personal attacks on me
and call me the same things he does. In fact they quibble
amongst themselves over which has the most up-to-date
name to call me during normal conversation.

>The whole thing is
>fun enough to keep me coming
>back, long after I originally came
>to share my recipe thing.

Then I guess neither of us has any room for complaint.

>> >It's turning out that
>> >DH and myself have different ideas
>> >about what constitutes a good
>> >life.
>>
>> Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
>> has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
>> produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
>> commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
>> Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
>> him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
>> opposite is true.
>
>The gaming birds are especially
>disturbing, and I don't fear losing
>an ally enough to not be willing to
>debate it with him. While it's
>always nice having allies, I don't
>expect anyone here to agree
>with me 100%.

Allies are something I've always been very short of
here, and to tell you the truth, I honestly prefer it that
way. Unburdened by party politics allows me to take
on and challenge anyone I see fit.

>> >> >then I
>> >> >am very against that and am willing
>> >> >to debate the issue.
>> >>
>> >> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
>> >> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
>> >
>> >Nothing wrong with that. It's not
>> >sitting on the fence, it's simply not
>> >being bothered to debate it
>> >further.
>>
>> But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
>> class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
>> it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
>> whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
>> short, you're sitting on the fence.
>
>It's more like 'I rest my case'.

Rather, it could be argued that you're yet to make one if
in fact you're not prepared to debate it through and have
it tested. ;-) You will have it dragged out of you one way
or another, and you'll know when it's all been laid bare
when Jon announces something similar to;

"It took a little longer than usual, but I *always* get
there. In this case, "there" is a previously mouthy,
arrogant, strutting blowhard, now standing stark naked,
eyes glazed, with his skin peeled off in bloody strips,
jumbled in a pile at his cracked feet."
http://tinyurl.com/3lf2q

>Sometimes, when all I have
>left are the same arguments
>as I've already stated,

..... in brief ...

>I figure
>why go to the trouble of
>repeating myself. Often
>I'll go to that trouble, but
>sometimes not.

Oh, so you think you have a choice. So did I, but, as
I've said before, SN, this is a debating circle, not a
cookery class, and that fence you're sitting on WILL
fall one way or the other, given time.

>> >> >I consider
>> >> >those chickens to be in the category
>> >> >of miserable lives.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
>> >> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
>> >> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
>> >> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
>> >
>> >I disagree with him regarding gaming
>> >birds. So what?
>>
>> So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
>> that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
>> now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
>> instance?
>
>My opinion has lowered of DH due
>to the gaming birds.

And that's just the start. You should see the crap he's
knocking out these days: all twigs and leaf. I wouldn't
have the nerve to serve that up to a first-timer. The
batts have run out on my scales, but even so, I'm sure
the ******'s been dealing a bit lighter than usual lately.

>Also, it appears
>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
>between a good life and a bad one
>except in some of his posts. That
>part makes me wonder what his
>current position really is,

Don't ask me.

>the seeing
>of good and bad, or the lumping
>them all in as good. Was it a lie
>when he told me that he considers
>quality of life? 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.

I really doubt that anyone's would.

>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.

So do I.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:22:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> [..]
>> >> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
>> >> >
>> >> >If he really does breed them,
>> >>
>> >> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
>> >> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
>> >> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
>> >> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
>> >> Are you big enough to do that?
>> >
>> >Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
>>
>> An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
>> defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
>> your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
>> from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
>> justification or defence of something. Such an apology
>> could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
>> and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
>> to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
>> However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
>> Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
>> So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
>> on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
>> referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
>> Harrison's argument.
>
>In that form, I could toss him an
>apology. You are right that his
>real lies elsewhere swayed me.

If you ever get a spare hour for a really good read on the
subject of apology, go to this link
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
and read Socrates' Defence. It's a fairly long read, but I
guarantee you won't be able to stop once you start it.

>> >He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
>> >feelings the way I would with most people.
>>
>> He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
>> to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
>> his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
>> Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
>> me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.
>
>I laugh too.

Anyone with an ounce of humour in them just has to
laugh at his way of insulting people ,,,,,,,,,,, sometimes.
Even my own kids laugh at his personal attacks on me
and call me the same things he does. In fact they quibble
amongst themselves over which has the most up-to-date
name to call me during normal conversation.

>The whole thing is
>fun enough to keep me coming
>back, long after I originally came
>to share my recipe thing.

Then I guess neither of us has any room for complaint.

>> >It's turning out that
>> >DH and myself have different ideas
>> >about what constitutes a good
>> >life.
>>
>> Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
>> has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
>> produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
>> commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
>> Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
>> him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
>> opposite is true.
>
>The gaming birds are especially
>disturbing, and I don't fear losing
>an ally enough to not be willing to
>debate it with him. While it's
>always nice having allies, I don't
>expect anyone here to agree
>with me 100%.

Allies are something I've always been very short of
here, and to tell you the truth, I honestly prefer it that
way. Unburdened by party politics allows me to take
on and challenge anyone I see fit.

>> >> >then I
>> >> >am very against that and am willing
>> >> >to debate the issue.
>> >>
>> >> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
>> >> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
>> >
>> >Nothing wrong with that. It's not
>> >sitting on the fence, it's simply not
>> >being bothered to debate it
>> >further.
>>
>> But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
>> class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
>> it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
>> whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
>> short, you're sitting on the fence.
>
>It's more like 'I rest my case'.

Rather, it could be argued that you're yet to make one if
in fact you're not prepared to debate it through and have
it tested. ;-) You will have it dragged out of you one way
or another, and you'll know when it's all been laid bare
when Jon announces something similar to;

"It took a little longer than usual, but I *always* get
there. In this case, "there" is a previously mouthy,
arrogant, strutting blowhard, now standing stark naked,
eyes glazed, with his skin peeled off in bloody strips,
jumbled in a pile at his cracked feet."
http://tinyurl.com/3lf2q

>Sometimes, when all I have
>left are the same arguments
>as I've already stated,

..... in brief ...

>I figure
>why go to the trouble of
>repeating myself. Often
>I'll go to that trouble, but
>sometimes not.

Oh, so you think you have a choice. So did I, but, as
I've said before, SN, this is a debating circle, not a
cookery class, and that fence you're sitting on WILL
fall one way or the other, given time.

>> >> >I consider
>> >> >those chickens to be in the category
>> >> >of miserable lives.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
>> >> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
>> >> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
>> >> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
>> >
>> >I disagree with him regarding gaming
>> >birds. So what?
>>
>> So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
>> that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
>> now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
>> instance?
>
>My opinion has lowered of DH due
>to the gaming birds.

And that's just the start. You should see the crap he's
knocking out these days: all twigs and leaf. I wouldn't
have the nerve to serve that up to a first-timer. The
batts have run out on my scales, but even so, I'm sure
the ******'s been dealing a bit lighter than usual lately.

>Also, it appears
>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
>between a good life and a bad one
>except in some of his posts. That
>part makes me wonder what his
>current position really is,

Don't ask me.

>the seeing
>of good and bad, or the lumping
>them all in as good. Was it a lie
>when he told me that he considers
>quality of life? 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.

I really doubt that anyone's would.

>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.

So do I.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
news
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Derek" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>"Derek" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>[..]
> >>
> >>>>>>we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If he really does breed them,
> >>>>
> >>>>He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> >>>>that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> >>>>your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> >>>>apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> >>>>Are you big enough to do that?
> >>>
> >>>Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
> >>
> >>An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
> >>defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
> >>your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
> >>from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
> >>justification or defence of something. Such an apology
> >>could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
> >>and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
> >>to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
> >>However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
> >>Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
> >>So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
> >>on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
> >>referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
> >>Harrison's argument.
> >
> >
> > In that form, I could toss him an
> > apology. You are right that his
> > real lies elsewhere swayed me.
>
> There weren't any "real lies". You ought to be able to
> tell when I'm being serious and when I'm just 'avin a
> larf. Which do you think was in effect when I was
> writing about your fat pimply ass?

You may be joking of course
about pimply asses, but there
are the many times you've said
that I believe something I don't.
If you're not lying, then you
actually believe that you can
read my mind.

> >>>It's turning out that
> >>>DH and myself have different ideas
> >>>about what constitutes a good
> >>>life.
> >>
> >>Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> >>has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> >>produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> >>commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> >>Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> >>him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> >>opposite is true.
> >
> >
> > The gaming birds are especially
> > disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> > an ally enough to not be willing to
> > debate it with him.
>
> What are you going to debate with him? He's going to
> come back with his same old one-note song: "at least
> the birds 'get to experience life'"; in other words,
> that existence _per se_ is a benefit to them (compared
> with never existing.)

My side of the debate is the
stance that gaming birds do
not lead a beneficial/good
life. They are better off not
ever living.

> > While it's
> > always nice having allies, I don't
> > expect anyone here to agree
> > with me 100%.
> >
> >
> >>>It's still possible that he
> >>>believes game cocks lead a good
> >>>life, in which case I have way
> >>>different standards regarding
> >>>that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>then I
> >>>>>am very against that and am willing
> >>>>>to debate the issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >>>>say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >>>
> >>>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >>>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >>>being bothered to debate it
> >>>further.
> >>
> >>But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> >>class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> >>it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> >>whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> >>short, you're sitting on the fence.
> >
> >
> > It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>
> You really don't have a case, because you really don't
> believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
> believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
> your own.

I have my own standards regarding
morality and ethics. I have my own
take on what's moral and what's
not. Everyone has their own.

> > Sometimes, when all I have
> > left are the same arguments
> > as I've already stated,
>
> 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 figure why go to the trouble of
> > repeating myself. Often
> > I'll go to that trouble, but
> > sometimes not.
> >
> >
> >>>>>I consider
> >>>>>those chickens to be in the category
> >>>>>of miserable lives.
> >>>>
> >>>>And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> >>>>them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> >>>>welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> >>>>do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
> >>>
> >>>I disagree with him regarding gaming
> >>>birds. So what?
> >>
> >>So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
> >>that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
> >>now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
> >>instance?
> >
> >
> > My opinion has lowered of DH due
> > to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
> > that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> > between a good life and a bad one
> > except in some of his posts.
>
> He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
> sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
> that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
> to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
> existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
> beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
> quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
> ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
> hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
> exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
> lives" is just a tactic.

The decent lives lie was what I
found to be an ethical, better than
other meat eaters, thing. With
that gone, and with the addition
of gaming birds, it doesn't look
too good.

>
> > That part makes me wonder what his
> > current position really is, the seeing
> > of good and bad, or the lumping
> > them all in as good. Was it a lie
> > when he told me that he considers
> > quality of life?
>
> Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
> from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
>
> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> could have?
> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
>
> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
>
> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> most important benefits for any being. Though
> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> animals are completely different things and not
> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> depending on the particular things that they
> experience.
> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
>
> ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
> taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
> to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
> horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
> prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
> of life consideration.

Quality of life is a big thing
ethically speaking. It's a huge
difference between a happy
animal and a miserable one.

> > 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. I may be agreeing with you
on some things these days, but
you've not turned into an angel.


--
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 , 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, 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.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

No, YOU believe it's evil to kill animals,
Goober****wit: "mitigation of the evil of killing it"
refers to YOUR belief.

> __________________________________________________ _______
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Same again, Goober****wit: YOU are the one who sees
some moral problem with it, and feels the need to
mitigate the wrong.

> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Wilson Woods >
> 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.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That is not my answer, Goober****wit, and it is not my
belief. We have made this clear many times. I was
giving you the answer "vegans" give.


>
>>Just who do you think you're fooling?

Just whom DO you think you're fooling, Goober****wit?
You aren't fooling anyone.


>>>>>>Though he does lie about people's private affairs here, I've
>>>>>>yet to see him lie about Harrison's position
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie and we both know it.
>>>>
>>>>No, Harrison; it's not a lie.
>>>
>>> Yes it is, and we both do know it.
>>
>>Then, for the last time, PROVIDE A ****ING
>>EXAMPLE, you lying jerk-off.
>
>
> Okay, you lying gonadal ass licking scum. But you'll somehow
> lie about it too, as you have proven that you like to do. The
> Gonad lies and says I don't consider quality of life, but at one
> time he was honest enough to admit that I do:
>
> [snip crap]


Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Goober****wit - 03/22/2005

You do not consider quality of life, Goober****wit.
You view existence itself as a benefit, IRRESPECTIVE of
quality of life.

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.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That quote refers to you and your argument. It says
nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything.
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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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 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.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>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.

[snipped list of misquotes]

You really are looking quite desperate right now.

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.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That quote refers to you and your argument. It says
nothing about Jon's argument or view on anything.
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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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 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.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>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.

[snipped list of misquotes]

You really are looking quite desperate right now.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:22:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> [..]
> >> >> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If he really does breed them,
> >> >>
> >> >> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> >> >> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> >> >> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> >> >> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> >> >> Are you big enough to do that?
> >> >
> >> >Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
> >>
> >> An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
> >> defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
> >> your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
> >> from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
> >> justification or defence of something. Such an apology
> >> could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
> >> and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
> >> to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
> >> However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
> >> Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
> >> So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
> >> on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
> >> referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
> >> Harrison's argument.
> >
> >In that form, I could toss him an
> >apology. You are right that his
> >real lies elsewhere swayed me.
>
> If you ever get a spare hour for a really good read on the
> subject of apology, go to this link
> http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
> and read Socrates' Defence. It's a fairly long read, but I
> guarantee you won't be able to stop once you start it.

I'll save the link to check out
sometime.

> >> >He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
> >> >feelings the way I would with most people.
> >>
> >> He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
> >> to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
> >> his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
> >> Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
> >> me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.
> >
> >I laugh too.
>
> Anyone with an ounce of humour in them just has to
> laugh at his way of insulting people ,,,,,,,,,,, sometimes.
> Even my own kids laugh at his personal attacks on me
> and call me the same things he does. In fact they quibble
> amongst themselves over which has the most up-to-date
> name to call me during normal conversation.
>
> >The whole thing is
> >fun enough to keep me coming
> >back, long after I originally came
> >to share my recipe thing.
>
> Then I guess neither of us has any room for complaint.
>
> >> >It's turning out that
> >> >DH and myself have different ideas
> >> >about what constitutes a good
> >> >life.
> >>
> >> Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> >> has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> >> produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> >> commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> >> Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> >> him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> >> opposite is true.
> >
> >The gaming birds are especially
> >disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> >an ally enough to not be willing to
> >debate it with him. While it's
> >always nice having allies, I don't
> >expect anyone here to agree
> >with me 100%.
>
> Allies are something I've always been very short of
> here, and to tell you the truth, I honestly prefer it that
> way. Unburdened by party politics allows me to take
> on and challenge anyone I see fit.

It's better that way. You don't
have to conform to prescribed
set of beliefs.

> >> >> >then I
> >> >> >am very against that and am willing
> >> >> >to debate the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >> >> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >> >
> >> >Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >> >sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >> >being bothered to debate it
> >> >further.
> >>
> >> But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> >> class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> >> it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> >> whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> >> short, you're sitting on the fence.
> >
> >It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>
> Rather, it could be argued that you're yet to make one if
> in fact you're not prepared to debate it through and have
> it tested. ;-) You will have it dragged out of you one way
> or another, and you'll know when it's all been laid bare
> when Jon announces something similar to;
>
> "It took a little longer than usual, but I *always* get
> there. In this case, "there" is a previously mouthy,
> arrogant, strutting blowhard, now standing stark naked,
> eyes glazed, with his skin peeled off in bloody strips,
> jumbled in a pile at his cracked feet."
> http://tinyurl.com/3lf2q
>
> >Sometimes, when all I have
> >left are the same arguments
> >as I've already stated,
>
> .... in brief ...
>
> >I figure
> >why go to the trouble of
> >repeating myself. Often
> >I'll go to that trouble, but
> >sometimes not.
>
> Oh, so you think you have a choice. So did I, but, as
> I've said before, SN, this is a debating circle, not a
> cookery class, and that fence you're sitting on WILL
> fall one way or the other, given time.

I see nothing wrong with sitting
on the fence. In debates, I will
seem to do that when bored
or tired of a thread, and I
also do that when I haven't
decided on something yet.

> >> >> >I consider
> >> >> >those chickens to be in the category
> >> >> >of miserable lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> >> >> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> >> >> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> >> >> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
> >> >
> >> >I disagree with him regarding gaming
> >> >birds. So what?
> >>
> >> So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
> >> that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
> >> now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
> >> instance?
> >
> >My opinion has lowered of DH due
> >to the gaming birds.
>
> And that's just the start. You should see the crap he's
> knocking out these days: all twigs and leaf. I wouldn't
> have the nerve to serve that up to a first-timer. The
> batts have run out on my scales, but even so, I'm sure
> the ******'s been dealing a bit lighter than usual lately.

His recent claim of being
concerned about animal
welfare being blown to
smithereens by the game
birds, really blew it in my
opinion of him. I have to
still give him credit though
for making me think about
where I get eggs (since
I'm not quite vegan currently).
Even though it was based
on a lie regarding his own
views, it still got me thinking.

> >Also, it appears
> >that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> >between a good life and a bad one
> >except in some of his posts. That
> >part makes me wonder what his
> >current position really is,
>
> Don't ask me.

Wasn't. I was just wondering
out loud.

> >the seeing
> >of good and bad, or the lumping
> >them all in as good. Was it a lie
> >when he told me that he considers
> >quality of life? 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.
>
> I really doubt that anyone's would.

Hehe. He is a personality,
I'll give him that.

> >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.
>
> So do I.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:22:17 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:48:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> >> [..]
> >> >> >> we can see that Jon is neither wrong or lying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If he really does breed them,
> >> >>
> >> >> He did and probably still does. One thing is certain, and
> >> >> that's his continued promotion of it. So, getting back to
> >> >> your original statement, yet again, aren't you going to
> >> >> apologise to Jon for calling him a liar in this instance?
> >> >> Are you big enough to do that?
> >> >
> >> >Even though he wasn't lying after all, I won't apologize.
> >>
> >> An apology needn't be a groveling statement conceding
> >> defeat or an acknowledgement of wrongful behaviour on
> >> your part. In fact, contrary to that, the Greek term "apologia",
> >> from where "apology" is derived, is exactly defined as a
> >> justification or defence of something. Such an apology
> >> could include the fact that Jon has repeatedly lied to you
> >> and about you in the past, and that you have no option but
> >> to assume he is lying about Harrison in a similar way.
> >> However, evidence shows that Jon has not lied about
> >> Harrison, at least, certainly not about Harrison's argument.
> >> So if I were to have to apologise to Jon because of an error
> >> on my part, it would be to in the form of a defence by
> >> referring to his history of lying in other areas aside from
> >> Harrison's argument.
> >
> >In that form, I could toss him an
> >apology. You are right that his
> >real lies elsewhere swayed me.
>
> If you ever get a spare hour for a really good read on the
> subject of apology, go to this link
> http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
> and read Socrates' Defence. It's a fairly long read, but I
> guarantee you won't be able to stop once you start it.

I'll save the link to check out
sometime.

> >> >He's too nasty with the insults for me to consider his
> >> >feelings the way I would with most people.
> >>
> >> He hasn't even started yet. When he finally gives up trying
> >> to reason with you after realising he can't get you to think
> >> his way, those insults will come thicker and faster than ever.
> >> Personally, even when those insults are directed straight at
> >> me, I can't help but laugh at some of them.
> >
> >I laugh too.
>
> Anyone with an ounce of humour in them just has to
> laugh at his way of insulting people ,,,,,,,,,,, sometimes.
> Even my own kids laugh at his personal attacks on me
> and call me the same things he does. In fact they quibble
> amongst themselves over which has the most up-to-date
> name to call me during normal conversation.
>
> >The whole thing is
> >fun enough to keep me coming
> >back, long after I originally came
> >to share my recipe thing.
>
> Then I guess neither of us has any room for complaint.
>
> >> >It's turning out that
> >> >DH and myself have different ideas
> >> >about what constitutes a good
> >> >life.
> >>
> >> Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> >> has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> >> produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> >> commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> >> Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> >> him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> >> opposite is true.
> >
> >The gaming birds are especially
> >disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> >an ally enough to not be willing to
> >debate it with him. While it's
> >always nice having allies, I don't
> >expect anyone here to agree
> >with me 100%.
>
> Allies are something I've always been very short of
> here, and to tell you the truth, I honestly prefer it that
> way. Unburdened by party politics allows me to take
> on and challenge anyone I see fit.

It's better that way. You don't
have to conform to prescribed
set of beliefs.

> >> >> >then I
> >> >> >am very against that and am willing
> >> >> >to debate the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >> >> say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >> >
> >> >Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >> >sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >> >being bothered to debate it
> >> >further.
> >>
> >> But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> >> class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> >> it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> >> whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> >> short, you're sitting on the fence.
> >
> >It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>
> Rather, it could be argued that you're yet to make one if
> in fact you're not prepared to debate it through and have
> it tested. ;-) You will have it dragged out of you one way
> or another, and you'll know when it's all been laid bare
> when Jon announces something similar to;
>
> "It took a little longer than usual, but I *always* get
> there. In this case, "there" is a previously mouthy,
> arrogant, strutting blowhard, now standing stark naked,
> eyes glazed, with his skin peeled off in bloody strips,
> jumbled in a pile at his cracked feet."
> http://tinyurl.com/3lf2q
>
> >Sometimes, when all I have
> >left are the same arguments
> >as I've already stated,
>
> .... in brief ...
>
> >I figure
> >why go to the trouble of
> >repeating myself. Often
> >I'll go to that trouble, but
> >sometimes not.
>
> Oh, so you think you have a choice. So did I, but, as
> I've said before, SN, this is a debating circle, not a
> cookery class, and that fence you're sitting on WILL
> fall one way or the other, given time.

I see nothing wrong with sitting
on the fence. In debates, I will
seem to do that when bored
or tired of a thread, and I
also do that when I haven't
decided on something yet.

> >> >> >I consider
> >> >> >those chickens to be in the category
> >> >> >of miserable lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what do you have to say about his part in breeding
> >> >> them while at the same time pretending to promote animal
> >> >> welfare? Are you going to agree to disagree with him, or
> >> >> do you have anything to say here AT ALL?
> >> >
> >> >I disagree with him regarding gaming
> >> >birds. So what?
> >>
> >> So what is your opinion of Harrison now you've learned
> >> that he has lied to you, and what is your opinion of Jon
> >> now you've learned that he hasn't lied to you in this
> >> instance?
> >
> >My opinion has lowered of DH due
> >to the gaming birds.
>
> And that's just the start. You should see the crap he's
> knocking out these days: all twigs and leaf. I wouldn't
> have the nerve to serve that up to a first-timer. The
> batts have run out on my scales, but even so, I'm sure
> the ******'s been dealing a bit lighter than usual lately.

His recent claim of being
concerned about animal
welfare being blown to
smithereens by the game
birds, really blew it in my
opinion of him. I have to
still give him credit though
for making me think about
where I get eggs (since
I'm not quite vegan currently).
Even though it was based
on a lie regarding his own
views, it still got me thinking.

> >Also, it appears
> >that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> >between a good life and a bad one
> >except in some of his posts. That
> >part makes me wonder what his
> >current position really is,
>
> Don't ask me.

Wasn't. I was just wondering
out loud.

> >the seeing
> >of good and bad, or the lumping
> >them all in as good. Was it a lie
> >when he told me that he considers
> >quality of life? 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.
>
> I really doubt that anyone's would.

Hehe. He is a personality,
I'll give him that.

> >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.
>
> So do I.

> 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.
Since they do say they eat
meat, I believe them on that
one.

> >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."
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> 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".
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800
> Message-ID: >
>
> I am an animal rights believer.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

I would want to see the full thread
to see it in context (especially the
last one), but it is possible that
he believes in some animal
rights but not to the extent of
being ARA.

> >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?

> >> >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?

> 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.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

He writes that way when he's
telling you what HE thinks that
YOU believe, or should believe.
I frequently argue with him over
this practice.

> >> >When he's wrong about
> >> >someone's beliefs, he'll refuse to
> >> >believe them.
> >>
> >> And when he agrees with them, he uses
> >> them to oppose the suggestion that people
> >> choose decent AW over "AR", as he
> >> constantly does.
> >>
> >> >> >but it
> >> >> >can be misleading when he or Dutch
> >> >> >tell people that they MUST believe this
> >> >> >or that. It comes across sounding like
> >> >> >they believe it themselves and are trying
> >> >> >to convince others.
> >> >>
> >> >> They are. I'm not going to be fooled into
> >> >> believing they use arguments they don't
> >> >> agree with. If you believe they would, then
> >> >> please explain why.
> >> >
> >> >I think they want to set up an extremist
> >> >view so that they can knock it down
> >> >as extremist. They like to jump on
> >> >anyone who claims concern for the
> >> >animals and tell them they are not
> >> >doing it right. They like to say that
> >> >if you really believed such 'n such,
> >> >you'd do this or that. That's all my
> >> >experience with them so far.
> >>
> >> The Gonad has shown what he wants people to
> >> believe by using "AR" arguments. He wants people
> >> to believe as "ARAs" believe, and is lying when he
> >> says otherwise.
> >
> >True, even though he knows my
> >main motivation vegan-wise is
> >dietary and health based rather
> >than the original meaning, he
> >frequently tells me what I 'must'
> >believe, and it's a lie, not what
> >I really believe. Either that or
> >he actually believes himself
> >when he makes these claims.
>
> He probably believes some of his lies, but no one
> can convince me he's stupid enough to believe all
> of them.
>
> >> >> >> If Jon has lied about Harrison's position I'd be the first
> >> >> >> to know about it, and yet, in the five long years I've
> >> >> >> been here I'm still waiting for that moment to arrive.
> >> >> >> There have been times when I've gone after him for
> >> >> >> what appears to be a lie, only to later find out that the
> >> >> >> evidence I've used against him was yet another lie or
> >> >> >> misquote from Harrison.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's "what's going on here", so please take my advice
> >> >> >> and scrutinize every quote that Harrison produces,
> >> >> >> especially if they're said to be Jon's. If you DO find
> >> >> >> that Jon has lied, then please let me know about it. I've
> >> >> >> some very old scores I'd like to settle with him, and one
> >> >> >> valid scrap of evidence is all I need to engineer a plan
> >> >> >> to even those scores up a bit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jon called my mom a slut, and she
> >> >> >isn't. He called me marginally
> >> >> >employed and I'm not. Some
> >> >> >of the wacky stuff he writes, if he's
> >> >> >not lying, then he really believes
> >> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's hard to believe he's as stupid as he would
> >> >> have to be if he's not lying.
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >> >
> >> >> >He does dishonest things with
> >> >> >people's quotes but that's only
> >> >> >similar to a lie. Good luck with
> >> >> >settling the score. I'll be an avid
> >> >> >spectator.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's another lie. You've seen some of the Gonad's
> >> >> obvious lies about me, and mentioned it. There's no
> >> >> way this asshole couldn't have noticed them. I didn't
> >> >> really have anything against him until he lied about
> >> >> this, but he has proven himself no better than the
> >> >> Gonad.
> >> >
> >> >I'm stepping out from the fight between
> >> >you and Derek. You're both ok in my
> >> >view. As far as seeing Jon lie, I have
> >> >seen him lie, but if Derek doesn't
> >> >believe him to lie, then that's just the
> >> >way it is.
> >>
> >> There's more to it than that. It's an obvious lie when
> >> the Gonad says I don't consider quality of life, and you
> >> know it and have mentioned it and I remarked about it.
> >> So are you backing away from it now? Whether you do
> >> or not I know you know it's true, and if you start lying
> >> about it I'll just wonder why you started to lie about it. So
> >> far I still think enough of you to wonder why you don't
> >> wonder why Derek lies about this stuff.
> >
> >I think that Derek believes what
> >he's saying is true,
>
> I damn sure don't.
>
> >so for him it's
> >not a lie.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> >As far as Jon/Rudy goes
> >I'm not backing away from what
> >I've said about/to him. I do though
> >wonder if he's lying or not about
> >you breeding fighting cocks.
>
> I used to raise them, so I know a lot
> about them. The Gonad has never been
> around any type of farm animals, and has
> no clue what he's trying to discuss.

If you still think it's good to
raise fighting animals, then
I disagree strongly with that.
I've read and seen enough
on tv to know that they do not
live good lives or deaths.

> >If
> >it is true, then that's something
> >we'll have to agree to disagree
> >on.
> >
> >> >I have often seen him
> >> >change a person's quotes in order
> >> >to change the context and meaning.
> >> >That's as good as a lie, the way he
> >> >does it. He has many times claimed
> >> >I believe things I don't.
> >>
> >> All you have to do is point them out, and I would love
> >> to see him hate seeing you do it. If you do it I predict
> >> Derek will take his side.
> >
> >I usually do point him out and
> >debate it with him when it
> >happens. So far Derek has
> >not taken his side, although
> >if he did, that would be his
> >choice to do so. I don't agree
> >100% with anyone.
>
> Derek has proven himself to be no better than
> the Gonad.

He simply agrees with him on
something, not everything.


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

> >> >Those are
> >> >lies too. Unless, of course, in the
> >> >unlikely situation of him actually
> >> >believing what he types. Then it's
> >> >not technically a lie, I guess.
>

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In that form, I could toss him an
>>>apology. You are right that his
>>>real lies elsewhere swayed me.
>>
>>There weren't any "real lies". You ought to be able to
>>tell when I'm being serious and when I'm just 'avin a
>>larf. Which do you think was in effect when I was
>>writing about your fat pimply ass?
>
>
> You may be joking of course
> about pimply asses, but there
> are the many times you've said
> that I believe something I don't.

I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
(which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
belief in B, then there are two choices:

1. you lied when you said you believe A
2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
two mutually exclusive positions at once


> If you're not lying, then you
> actually believe that you can
> read my mind.

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.

>
>
>>>>>It's turning out that
>>>>>DH and myself have different ideas
>>>>>about what constitutes a good
>>>>>life.
>>>>
>>>>Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
>>>>has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
>>>>produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
>>>>commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
>>>>Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
>>>>him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
>>>>opposite is true.
>>>
>>>
>>>The gaming birds are especially
>>>disturbing, and I don't fear losing
>>>an ally enough to not be willing to
>>>debate it with him.
>>
>>What are you going to debate with him? He's going to
>>come back with his same old one-note song: "at least
>>the birds 'get to experience life'"; in other words,
>>that existence _per se_ is a benefit to them (compared
>>with never existing.)
>
>
> My side of the debate is the
> stance that gaming birds do
> not lead a beneficial/good
> life. They are better off not
> ever living.
>
>
>>>While it's
>>>always nice having allies, I don't
>>>expect anyone here to agree
>>>with me 100%.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's still possible that he
>>>>>believes game cocks lead a good
>>>>>life, in which case I have way
>>>>>different standards regarding
>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>then I
>>>>>>>am very against that and am willing
>>>>>>>to debate the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
>>>>>>say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
>>>>>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
>>>>>being bothered to debate it
>>>>>further.
>>>>
>>>>But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
>>>>class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
>>>>it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
>>>>whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
>>>>short, you're sitting on the fence.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>>
>>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
>>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
>>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
>>your own.
>
>
> I have my own standards regarding
> morality and ethics. I have my own
> take on what's moral and what's
> not. Everyone has their own.

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.

>
>
>>>Sometimes, when all I have
>>>left are the same arguments
>>>as I've already stated,
>>
>>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.


>>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
>>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
>>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
>>>between a good life and a bad one
>>>except in some of his posts.
>>
>>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
>>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
>>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
>>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
>>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
>>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
>>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
>>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
>>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
>>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
>>lives" is just a tactic.
>
>
> The decent lives lie was what I
> found to be an ethical, better than
> other meat eaters, thing. With
> that gone, and with the addition
> of gaming birds, it doesn't look
> too good.

He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.

>
>
>>>That part makes me wonder what his
>>>current position really is, the seeing
>>>of good and bad, or the lumping
>>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
>>>when he told me that he considers
>>>quality of life?
>>
>>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
>>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
>>
>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
>>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>> them from getting to live at all.
>> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
>>
>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>> animals are completely different things and not
>> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
>> depending on the particular things that they
>> experience.
>> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
>>
>>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
>>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
>>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
>>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
>>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
>>of life consideration.
>
>
> Quality of life is a big thing
> ethically speaking.

Is that just your personal "take"? <scoff>


>>>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.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In that form, I could toss him an
> >>>apology. You are right that his
> >>>real lies elsewhere swayed me.
> >>
> >>There weren't any "real lies". You ought to be able to
> >>tell when I'm being serious and when I'm just 'avin a
> >>larf. Which do you think was in effect when I was
> >>writing about your fat pimply ass?
> >
> >
> > You may be joking of course
> > about pimply asses, but there
> > are the many times you've said
> > that I believe something I don't.
>
> I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
> claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
> don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
> (which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
> belief in B, then there are two choices:
>
> 1. you lied when you said you believe A
> 2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
> two mutually exclusive positions at once
>

Our debates weren't as cut
and dry as that example.

> > If you're not lying, then you
> > actually believe that you can
> > read my mind.
>
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>>It's turning out that
> >>>>>DH and myself have different ideas
> >>>>>about what constitutes a good
> >>>>>life.
> >>>>
> >>>>Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> >>>>has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> >>>>produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> >>>>commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> >>>>Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> >>>>him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> >>>>opposite is true.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The gaming birds are especially
> >>>disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> >>>an ally enough to not be willing to
> >>>debate it with him.
> >>
> >>What are you going to debate with him? He's going to
> >>come back with his same old one-note song: "at least
> >>the birds 'get to experience life'"; in other words,
> >>that existence _per se_ is a benefit to them (compared
> >>with never existing.)
> >
> >
> > My side of the debate is the
> > stance that gaming birds do
> > not lead a beneficial/good
> > life. They are better off not
> > ever living.
> >
> >
> >>>While it's
> >>>always nice having allies, I don't
> >>>expect anyone here to agree
> >>>with me 100%.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It's still possible that he
> >>>>>believes game cocks lead a good
> >>>>>life, in which case I have way
> >>>>>different standards regarding
> >>>>>that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>then I
> >>>>>>>am very against that and am willing
> >>>>>>>to debate the issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >>>>>>say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >>>>>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >>>>>being bothered to debate it
> >>>>>further.
> >>>>
> >>>>But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> >>>>class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> >>>>it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> >>>>whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> >>>>short, you're sitting on the fence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
> >>
> >>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
> >>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
> >>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
> >>your own.
> >
> >
> > I have my own standards regarding
> > morality and ethics. I have my own
> > take on what's moral and what's
> > not. Everyone has their own.
>
> 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. People frequently have
different morals than each
other. However, most would
agree that your fave example
is very wrong/bad.

> >
> >
> >>>Sometimes, when all I have
> >>>left are the same arguments
> >>>as I've already stated,
> >>
> >>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, not necessarily
what I actually believe.

> >>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
> >>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
> >>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> >>>between a good life and a bad one
> >>>except in some of his posts.
> >>
> >>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
> >>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
> >>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
> >>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
> >>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
> >>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
> >>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
> >>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
> >>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
> >>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
> >>lives" is just a tactic.
> >
> >
> > The decent lives lie was what I
> > found to be an ethical, better than
> > other meat eaters, thing. With
> > that gone, and with the addition
> > of gaming birds, it doesn't look
> > too good.
>
> He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
> 46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
> southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
> houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
> very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
> an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
> social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.

I don't care if he's ***, and I doubt
your other insults are based in fact
since you've done the same ones
to me before. However, I do not
like his opinions regarding animals.

> >
> >
> >>>That part makes me wonder what his
> >>>current position really is, the seeing
> >>>of good and bad, or the lumping
> >>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
> >>>when he told me that he considers
> >>>quality of life?
> >>
> >>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
> >>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
> >>
> >> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >> are more than just "nothing", because they
> >> *will* be born unless something stops their
> >> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >> if something stops their lives from happening,
> >> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
> >>
> >> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >> that would experience the loss if their lives
> >> are prevented.
> >> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
> >>
> >> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >> could have?
> >> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
> >>
> >> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >> them from getting to live at all.
> >> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
> >>
> >> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> >> most important benefits for any being. Though
> >> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> >> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> >> animals are completely different things and not
> >> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> >> depending on the particular things that they
> >> experience.
> >> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
> >>
> >>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
> >>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
> >>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
> >>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
> >>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
> >>of life consideration.
> >
> >
> > 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?

>
> >>>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.


--
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
> > news > >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In that form, I could toss him an
> >>>apology. You are right that his
> >>>real lies elsewhere swayed me.
> >>
> >>There weren't any "real lies". You ought to be able to
> >>tell when I'm being serious and when I'm just 'avin a
> >>larf. Which do you think was in effect when I was
> >>writing about your fat pimply ass?
> >
> >
> > You may be joking of course
> > about pimply asses, but there
> > are the many times you've said
> > that I believe something I don't.
>
> I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
> claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
> don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
> (which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
> belief in B, then there are two choices:
>
> 1. you lied when you said you believe A
> 2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
> two mutually exclusive positions at once
>

Our debates weren't as cut
and dry as that example.

> > If you're not lying, then you
> > actually believe that you can
> > read my mind.
>
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>>It's turning out that
> >>>>>DH and myself have different ideas
> >>>>>about what constitutes a good
> >>>>>life.
> >>>>
> >>>>Though you don't want to admit it and lose an ally, Harrison
> >>>>has been lying to you while Jon has gone to great lengths to
> >>>>produce Harrison's quotes accurately and with a faithful
> >>>>commentary explaining the implications of those quotes.
> >>>>Harrison's only rebuttal is to claim that Jon has misquoted
> >>>>him and lied, but, as you've seen for yourself now, the exact
> >>>>opposite is true.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The gaming birds are especially
> >>>disturbing, and I don't fear losing
> >>>an ally enough to not be willing to
> >>>debate it with him.
> >>
> >>What are you going to debate with him? He's going to
> >>come back with his same old one-note song: "at least
> >>the birds 'get to experience life'"; in other words,
> >>that existence _per se_ is a benefit to them (compared
> >>with never existing.)
> >
> >
> > My side of the debate is the
> > stance that gaming birds do
> > not lead a beneficial/good
> > life. They are better off not
> > ever living.
> >
> >
> >>>While it's
> >>>always nice having allies, I don't
> >>>expect anyone here to agree
> >>>with me 100%.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>It's still possible that he
> >>>>>believes game cocks lead a good
> >>>>>life, in which case I have way
> >>>>>different standards regarding
> >>>>>that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>then I
> >>>>>>>am very against that and am willing
> >>>>>>>to debate the issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, you aren't. You'll sit on the fence as usual and weakly
> >>>>>>say, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nothing wrong with that. It's not
> >>>>>sitting on the fence, it's simply not
> >>>>>being bothered to debate it
> >>>>>further.
> >>>>
> >>>>But, you're in a debating circle now rather than a cookery
> >>>>class, SN, and if you're "simply not being bothered to debate
> >>>>it further" then the finer philosophical points underlying "it",
> >>>>whatever "it" is in your case, aren't going to be tested. In
> >>>>short, you're sitting on the fence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
> >>
> >>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
> >>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
> >>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
> >>your own.
> >
> >
> > I have my own standards regarding
> > morality and ethics. I have my own
> > take on what's moral and what's
> > not. Everyone has their own.
>
> 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. People frequently have
different morals than each
other. However, most would
agree that your fave example
is very wrong/bad.

> >
> >
> >>>Sometimes, when all I have
> >>>left are the same arguments
> >>>as I've already stated,
> >>
> >>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, not necessarily
what I actually believe.

> >>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
> >>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
> >>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> >>>between a good life and a bad one
> >>>except in some of his posts.
> >>
> >>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
> >>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
> >>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
> >>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
> >>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
> >>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
> >>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
> >>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
> >>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
> >>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
> >>lives" is just a tactic.
> >
> >
> > The decent lives lie was what I
> > found to be an ethical, better than
> > other meat eaters, thing. With
> > that gone, and with the addition
> > of gaming birds, it doesn't look
> > too good.
>
> He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
> 46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
> southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
> houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
> very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
> an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
> social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.

I don't care if he's ***, and I doubt
your other insults are based in fact
since you've done the same ones
to me before. However, I do not
like his opinions regarding animals.

> >
> >
> >>>That part makes me wonder what his
> >>>current position really is, the seeing
> >>>of good and bad, or the lumping
> >>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
> >>>when he told me that he considers
> >>>quality of life?
> >>
> >>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
> >>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
> >>
> >> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >> are more than just "nothing", because they
> >> *will* be born unless something stops their
> >> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >> if something stops their lives from happening,
> >> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
> >>
> >> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >> that would experience the loss if their lives
> >> are prevented.
> >> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
> >>
> >> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >> could have?
> >> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
> >>
> >> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >> them from getting to live at all.
> >> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
> >>
> >> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> >> most important benefits for any being. Though
> >> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> >> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> >> animals are completely different things and not
> >> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> >> depending on the particular things that they
> >> experience.
> >> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
> >>
> >>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
> >>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
> >>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
> >>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
> >>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
> >>of life consideration.
> >
> >
> > 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?

>
> >>>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.


--
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
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>You may be joking of course
>>>about pimply asses, but there
>>>are the many times you've said
>>>that I believe something I don't.
>>
>>I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
>>claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
>>don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
>>(which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
>>belief in B, then there are two choices:
>>
>>1. you lied when you said you believe A
>>2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
>> two mutually exclusive positions at once
>>
>
>
> Our debates weren't as cut
> and dry as that example.

They most *certainly* were!


>>>If you're not lying, then you
>>>actually believe that you can
>>>read my mind.
>>
>>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?


>>>>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>>>>
>>>>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
>>>>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
>>>>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
>>>>your own.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have my own standards regarding
>>>morality and ethics. I have my own
>>>take on what's moral and what's
>>>not. Everyone has their own.
>>
>>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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.


>>>>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.


>
>>>>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
>>>>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
>>>>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
>>>>>between a good life and a bad one
>>>>>except in some of his posts.
>>>>
>>>>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
>>>>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
>>>>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
>>>>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
>>>>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
>>>>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
>>>>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
>>>>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
>>>>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
>>>>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
>>>>lives" is just a tactic.
>>>
>>>
>>>The decent lives lie was what I
>>>found to be an ethical, better than
>>>other meat eaters, thing. With
>>>that gone, and with the addition
>>>of gaming birds, it doesn't look
>>>too good.
>>
>>He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
>>46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
>>southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
>>houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
>>very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
>>an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
>>social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.
>
>
> I don't care if he's ***,

It would explain why he's such a mess. Homosexuals
have a harder time of it in the cracker south.

> and I doubt
> your other insults are based in fact

Every single one of them is absolutely true. He lives
on Lake Lanier on a crappy houseboat. He has admitted
in the past to having not much education. He admitted
to working for a while as some kind of handy-man at a
microbrewery in the area, and also to being a roadie
for southern rock bands. Every single word of that is
stuff he's admitted to here, and that is somewhere in
Google Groups' archives.

> since you've done the same ones
> to me before. However, I do not
> like his opinions regarding animals.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>That part makes me wonder what his
>>>>>current position really is, the seeing
>>>>>of good and bad, or the lumping
>>>>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
>>>>>when he told me that he considers
>>>>>quality of life?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
>>>
>>>>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
>>>
>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>>>> are prevented.
>>>> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
>>>>
>>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>>> could have?
>>>> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>>> them from getting to live at all.
>>>> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
>>>>
>>>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>>>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>>>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>>>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>>>> animals are completely different things and not
>>>> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
>>>> depending on the particular things that they
>>>> experience.
>>>> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
>>>>
>>>>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
>>>>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
>>>>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
>>>>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
>>>>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
>>>>of life consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.

>
>
>>>>>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.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>You may be joking of course
>>>about pimply asses, but there
>>>are the many times you've said
>>>that I believe something I don't.
>>
>>I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
>>claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
>>don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
>>(which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
>>belief in B, then there are two choices:
>>
>>1. you lied when you said you believe A
>>2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
>> two mutually exclusive positions at once
>>
>
>
> Our debates weren't as cut
> and dry as that example.

They most *certainly* were!


>>>If you're not lying, then you
>>>actually believe that you can
>>>read my mind.
>>
>>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?


>>>>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
>>>>
>>>>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
>>>>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
>>>>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
>>>>your own.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have my own standards regarding
>>>morality and ethics. I have my own
>>>take on what's moral and what's
>>>not. Everyone has their own.
>>
>>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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.


>>>>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.


>
>>>>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
>>>>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
>>>>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
>>>>>between a good life and a bad one
>>>>>except in some of his posts.
>>>>
>>>>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
>>>>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
>>>>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
>>>>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
>>>>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
>>>>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
>>>>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
>>>>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
>>>>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
>>>>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
>>>>lives" is just a tactic.
>>>
>>>
>>>The decent lives lie was what I
>>>found to be an ethical, better than
>>>other meat eaters, thing. With
>>>that gone, and with the addition
>>>of gaming birds, it doesn't look
>>>too good.
>>
>>He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
>>46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
>>southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
>>houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
>>very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
>>an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
>>social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.
>
>
> I don't care if he's ***,

It would explain why he's such a mess. Homosexuals
have a harder time of it in the cracker south.

> and I doubt
> your other insults are based in fact

Every single one of them is absolutely true. He lives
on Lake Lanier on a crappy houseboat. He has admitted
in the past to having not much education. He admitted
to working for a while as some kind of handy-man at a
microbrewery in the area, and also to being a roadie
for southern rock bands. Every single word of that is
stuff he's admitted to here, and that is somewhere in
Google Groups' archives.

> since you've done the same ones
> to me before. However, I do not
> like his opinions regarding animals.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>That part makes me wonder what his
>>>>>current position really is, the seeing
>>>>>of good and bad, or the lumping
>>>>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
>>>>>when he told me that he considers
>>>>>quality of life?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
>>>
>>>>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
>>>
>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>>>> are prevented.
>>>> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
>>>>
>>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>>> could have?
>>>> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>>> them from getting to live at all.
>>>> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
>>>>
>>>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
>>>> most important benefits for any being. Though
>>>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
>>>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
>>>> animals are completely different things and not
>>>> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
>>>> depending on the particular things that they
>>>> experience.
>>>> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
>>>>
>>>>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
>>>>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
>>>>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
>>>>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
>>>>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
>>>>of life consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.

>
>
>>>>>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.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> >>>news > >>>
> >>>
> >>>You may be joking of course
> >>>about pimply asses, but there
> >>>are the many times you've said
> >>>that I believe something I don't.
> >>
> >>I have said you MUST believe something if your earlier
> >>claim to believe something else is truthful. If you
> >>don't believe B, when I have shown that a belief in A
> >>(which you have earlier admitted) NECESSARILY implies a
> >>belief in B, then there are two choices:
> >>
> >>1. you lied when you said you believe A
> >>2. you are insane, and are trying to believe
> >> two mutually exclusive positions at once
> >>
> >
> >
> > Our debates weren't as cut
> > and dry as that example.
>
> They most *certainly* were!
>
>
> >>>If you're not lying, then you
> >>>actually believe that you can
> >>>read my mind.
> >>
> >>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?

>
> >>>>>It's more like 'I rest my case'.
> >>>>
> >>>>You really don't have a case, because you really don't
> >>>>believe in morality and ethics. You can't really
> >>>>believe in them if you think you entirely get to choose
> >>>>your own.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have my own standards regarding
> >>>morality and ethics. I have my own
> >>>take on what's moral and what's
> >>>not. Everyone has their own.
> >>
> >>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.

> 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.

> > 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.

> > 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
may not like it, but that's life.

>
> >>>>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.

>
> >
> >>>>>My opinion has lowered of DH due
> >>>>>to the gaming birds. Also, it appears
> >>>>>that sometimes doesn't differentiate
> >>>>>between a good life and a bad one
> >>>>>except in some of his posts.
> >>>>
> >>>>He NEVER really differentiates between them! He
> >>>>sometimes wants to give the appearance of doing so, but
> >>>>that's only tactical. He considers existence _per se_
> >>>>to be a benefit to animals (compared with never
> >>>>existing), and that and that ALONE is his reason for
> >>>>beating up on "vegans". He doesn't give a shit about
> >>>>quality of life for *any* animals; he only wants to
> >>>>ensure that farm animals continue to exist, and so he
> >>>>hates "vegans" because they DON'T want farm animals to
> >>>>exist. All of Goober****wit's rubbish about "decent
> >>>>lives" is just a tactic.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The decent lives lie was what I
> >>>found to be an ethical, better than
> >>>other meat eaters, thing. With
> >>>that gone, and with the addition
> >>>of gaming birds, it doesn't look
> >>>too good.
> >>
> >>He's a lying shitbag, and always has been. He's a
> >>46-year-old, badly-educated, menial-job-holding
> >>southern cracker. A goober. He lives on a shitty
> >>houseboat on a lake near Atlanta. I think there's a
> >>very high probability he's ***, and because he lives in
> >>an area not exactly famous for its tolerance toward
> >>social deviates, he's messed up by it as a result.
> >
> >
> > I don't care if he's ***,
>
> It would explain why he's such a mess. Homosexuals
> have a harder time of it in the cracker south.

Why do you think he's having
a hard time? He might be
very popular on the rooster
fighting circuit.

> > and I doubt
> > your other insults are based in fact
>
> Every single one of them is absolutely true. He lives
> on Lake Lanier on a crappy houseboat. He has admitted
> in the past to having not much education. He admitted
> to working for a while as some kind of handy-man at a
> microbrewery in the area, and also to being a roadie
> for southern rock bands. Every single word of that is
> stuff he's admitted to here, and that is somewhere in
> Google Groups' archives.

I don't enjoy searching for quotes.
It may be that your insults were
true on some things with DH but
I've seen you say many lies in
your insults.

> > since you've done the same ones
> > to me before. However, I do not
> > like his opinions regarding animals.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>That part makes me wonder what his
> >>>>>current position really is, the seeing
> >>>>>of good and bad, or the lumping
> >>>>>them all in as good. Was it a lie
> >>>>>when he told me that he considers
> >>>>>quality of life?
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, it was a lie. These five quotes, four of them
> >>>
> >>>>from years ago and one from this past week, prove it:
> >>>
> >>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> >>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
> >>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
> >>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> >>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
> >>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> >>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> >>>> Goober****wit - 12/09/1999
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> >>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> >>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
> >>>> are prevented.
> >>>> Goober****wit - 08/01/2000
> >>>>
> >>>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >>>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >>>> could have?
> >>>> Goober****wit - 10/12/2001
> >>>>
> >>>> What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >>>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> >>>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >>>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >>>> them from getting to live at all.
> >>>> Goober****wit - 10/19/1999
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
> >>>> most important benefits for any being. Though
> >>>> life itself is a necessary benefit for all
> >>>> beings, the individual life experiences of the
> >>>> animals are completely different things and not
> >>>> necessarily a benefit for every animal,
> >>>> depending on the particular things that they
> >>>> experience.
> >>>> Goober****wit - 03/22/2005
> >>>>
> >>>>ALL FIVE of these quotes show that Goober****wit is NOT
> >>>>taking quality of life into account. He is ONLY trying
> >>>>to make a case that "vegans" are trying to do something
> >>>>horrible to non-existent farm animals if they wish to
> >>>>prevent them from existing, IRRESPECTIVE of any quality
> >>>>of life consideration.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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.

> >
> >
> >>>>>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. You're lying again. I
think you know full well that I
think you're an asshole.


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