Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> [..] >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get >> you to where you want to be. >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without >> killing animals; > >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand if only you knew the difference between per se and per accidens. >but >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly >as a result of animal research would have been discovered >without? Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? > >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that >needed to be done. You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was needed, and nor have you answered the question put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is a dodge. >If you consumed plantation sugar >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, >"in essence" nature of the sugar? Neither. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 06:52:57 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 5 Sep 2005 17:09:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> > >> >I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and > >> >serious debate, just let me know. > >> > >> Why, so you can just whiff off again when the > >> going gets too tough for you, nebbish? > > > >I assume this is a reference to our conversation about direct action? > > No, this is in reference to your conversation with > Rudy concerning your lack of any "reasonable > stopping rule." To paraphrase him, you have no > coherent reason or principle behind your position > as someone willing to kill x, but not x + 1. Rudy is correct but I disagree with the implication that reducing the number of deaths is therefore pointless. Other things being equal, killing x is still better than killing x+1 whichever way you cut it. > His > comments are valid, and if you had any coherent > reason for stopping where you do with fish, you > would put it on the table for discussion instead > of cutting and running for the door as you did. I don't think Rudy was talking about fish but I shall answer your question anyway. Think of it as an uneasy compromize between conflicting principles helped by the fact that fish do not have the brain structrues associated with emotional thought in humans and probably lead less intensely emotional lives than birds or mammals do. There may be no difference in kind but there is a significant difference in degree. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > > [..] >>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically reduces >>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. > > Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; =================== No, they did not show that it automatically improved anything, fool. Try reading for comprehension, oh, and ask your buddy Aristotle about your continued culpability, killer. > > "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of > grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you > eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more > deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the > CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing > feed for the animals you eat. > > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 > > But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you > avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting > at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, > for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, > and for just about anything else you can think of without > any evidence to even support these claims. And all the > while while trying to attack them in this way you have > the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the > production of foods you eat, as in; > > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > > and > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > > So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths > they readily accept are associated with their diets, when > are you going to support your claim that the beef you > eat causes no collateral deaths at all? In short, when > are you going to stop lying and being such a hypocrite? |
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Sep 2005 11:41:12 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 6 Sep 2005 06:52:57 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 17:09:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and >> >> >serious debate, just let me know. >> >> >> >> Why, so you can just whiff off again when the >> >> going gets too tough for you, nebbish? >> > >> >I assume this is a reference to our conversation about direct action? >> >> No, this is in reference to your conversation with >> Rudy concerning your lack of any "reasonable >> stopping rule." To paraphrase him, you have no >> coherent reason or principle behind your position >> as someone willing to kill x, but not x + 1. > >Rudy is correct Then why didn't you say so instead of cutting his whole post away and running for the door? >but I disagree with the implication that >reducing the number of deaths is therefore pointless. He didn't imply that. >Other things being equal, killing x is still better than >killing x+1 whichever way you cut it. Yet earlier you admit that "Rudy is correct", that you have no coherent reason or principle behind your position ...", so how can you now claim that killing x is better than killing x + 1 if you have no coherent reason or principle behind that claim? Make up your mind and make your case for whatever you've got to say or admit you cannot and have wasted all our time. >> His >> comments are valid, and if you had any coherent >> reason for stopping where you do with fish, you >> would put it on the table for discussion instead >> of cutting and running for the door as you did. > >I don't think Rudy was talking about fish but I shall >answer your question anyway. Think of it as an uneasy >compromize between conflicting principles Tell me what you find so uneasy about your conflicting principles, pesco-vegan. >helped by the fact that fish do not have the brain structrues >associated with emotional thought in humans and probably >lead less intensely emotional lives than birds or >mammals do. There may be no difference in kind but >there is a significant difference in degree. Then for you, rights are directly proportional to a being's ability to express the correct signals that can be interpreted as emotion? Is that about right? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >> >> [..] >>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically reduces >>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >> >> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >=================== >No, they He. >did not show that it automatically improved anything, >fool. His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." *my emphasis* >> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >> feed for the animals you eat. >> >> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >> >> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >> and for just about anything else you can think of without >> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the >> production of foods you eat, as in; >> >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> >> and >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >> >> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? In short, when >> are you going to stop lying and being such a hypocrite? I just knew you'd whiff off from that. Read it again, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message news > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>> >>> [..] >>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>reduces >>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>> >>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>=================== >>No, they > > He. > >>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>fool. > > His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates > quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at > a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the > animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in > the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." > *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... ============== Again, it fails to show that vegan automatically means less death and suffering. Are you really too impaired to understand that? Oh, wait, yes you are, you've already proven that, over and over... > >>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>> feed for the animals you eat. >>> >>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>> >>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the >>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>> >>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>> >>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? ========================== No where have I ever stated that, fool.... In short, when >>> are you going to stop lying and being such a hypocrite? > > I just knew you'd whiff off from that. Read it again, > hypocrite. ========================== Nothing to whiff off about fool. It is a correct statement. Too bad you cannot say the same about your veggies, killer, and too bad you cannot read for comprehension, as usual.... |
|
|||
|
|||
Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy is correct Then cut the bullshit, nitwit. Your nym is still oxymoronic. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>> >>>> [..] >>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>reduces >>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>> >>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>=================== >>>No, they >> >> He. >> >>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>fool. >> >> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >============== I see you've already started editing my sentences without notation before responding to them, liar Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>> >>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>> >>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the >>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>> >>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>> >>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >========================== >No where have I ever stated that, fool.... Yes you have, liar. "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." and "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 Support those lies with evidence or retract them, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message >>news >>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [..] >>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>reduces >>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>> >>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>=================== >>>>No, they >>> >>> He. >>> >>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>fool. >>> >>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>============== > > I see you've already started editing my sentences > without notation before responding to them, liar > Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that > above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, > cheating piece of scum, Etter. ===================== ROTFLMAO And you should know, eh killer? being the king of lying scum, right hypocrite? > >>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>>> >>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>>> >>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the >>>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>>> >>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>> >>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >>========================== >>No where have I ever stated that, fool.... > > Yes you have, liar. =================== Nope, try reading for comprehension, fool. I know that that is difficult for you, what with only 2 grug impaired braincells left.... > > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > > and > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > > Support those lies with evidence or retract them, > hypocrite. ====================== True statements, fool. Neither says that they incur NO CDs before reaching my plate.... Too bad you can't say t6he same for the production of your veggies, killer... |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message news >>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>=================== >>>>>No, they >>>> >>>> He. >>>> >>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>fool. >>>> >>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>============== >> >> I see you've already started editing my sentences >> without notation before responding to them, liar >> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >===================== >ROTFLMAO You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before responding to them, and that's been proven to be you in more than one case. >>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>>>> >>>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>>>> >>>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the >>>>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>>>> >>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>> >>>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >>>========================== >>>No where have I ever stated that, fool.... >> >> Yes you have, liar. >=================== >Nope Your statements are still on this page proving you did, liar, so there's no use in trying to lie your way out of this one. >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> >> and >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >> >> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >> hypocrite. >====================== >True statements, fool. So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. While every message posted to Usenet causes and promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up that denial, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> [..] > >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan > >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you > >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with > >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. > >> > >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still > >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing > >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that > >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get > >> you to where you want to be. > >> > >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. > >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the > >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified > >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without > >> killing animals; > > > >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand > > What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand > if only you knew the difference between per se and > per accidens. I understand the difference. BTW, both meat and vegetables can theoretically exist without killing animals. > > >but > >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly > >as a result of animal research would have been discovered > >without? > > Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? "Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) > >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" > >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, > >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now > >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in > >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy > >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". > >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? > > > >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that > >needed to be done. > > You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was > needed, and nor have you answered the question > put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions > of your own is a dodge. The distinction between harm done per se and harm done per accidens is not so important. What matters is the consequences of production in the real world, not an idealized approximation of it. As a general rule, vegan foods are more ethical, in my way of thinking but there is an overlap. > >If you consumed plantation sugar > >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for > >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, > >"in essence" nature of the sugar? > > Neither. So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar was not responsible for supporting the slave trade then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not responsible for supporting the meat industry. In that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating the meat? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>news >>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:6gpqh1lgsp37auev3stejlk63qfii4dcdh@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>=================== >>>>>>No, they >>>>> >>>>> He. >>>>> >>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>fool. >>>>> >>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>============== >>> >>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>===================== >>ROTFLMAO > > You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and > cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before > responding to them, and that's been proven to be you > in more than one case. ======================= Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always snipped without annotation, hypocrite... > >>>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>>>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>>>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>>>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>>>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>>>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>>>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >>>>========================== >>>>No where have I ever stated that, fool.... >>> >>> Yes you have, liar. >>=================== >>Nope > > Your statements are still on this page proving you > did, liar, so there's no use in trying to lie your way > out of this one. ======================== No, they do not, fool. Too bad you can't read for comprehension, killer... > >>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>> >>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>> hypocrite. >>====================== >>True statements, fool. > > So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's > lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according > to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. ====================== By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... > While every message posted to Usenet causes and > promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the > production of grass fed beef does not. ============================ LOL Faoming at the mouth now, aren't you, killer? What electricity goes into the production of the beef? What a hoot, > and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only > do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention > here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of > the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up > that denial, hypocrite. ===================== You should know all about being a lying, scummy hypocrite, killer.... Too bad you can'r even ly very well. You just can't stand facts, eh killer? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message news >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>>=================== >>>>>>>No, they >>>>>> >>>>>> He. >>>>>> >>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>>fool. >>>>>> >>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>>============== >>>> >>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>===================== >>>ROTFLMAO >> >> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and >> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before >> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you >> in more than one case. >======================= >Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always >snipped without annotation, hypocrite... Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while editing your opponent's sentences before responding to them is not. Only a liar and a cheat alters his opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote something he didn't intend or was disputing, and that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll >>>>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>>>>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>>>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>>>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>>>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>>>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting >>>>>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat, >>>>>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet, >>>>>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without >>>>>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>>>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>>>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when >>>>>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>>>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >>>>>========================== >>>>>No where have I ever stated that, fool.... >>>> >>>> Yes you have, liar. >>>=================== >>>Nope >> >> Your statements are still on this page proving you >> did, liar, so there's no use in trying to lie your way >> out of this one. >======================== >No, they do not, fool. They reveal your denial of the collateral deaths associated with the production of the grass fed beef you claim to eat, yet all the while while denying them you feebly attack vegans for the alleged collateral deaths associated with every morsel of food they eat, and even the power they use to send messages to Usenet. How's that for hypocrisy? >>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>> >>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>> hypocrite. >>>====================== >>>True statements, fool. >> >> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >====================== >By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because believe it or not the production of grass fed beef does accrue collateral deaths like any other food stuff. Your denial of this fact while trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and priceless at the same time. >> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >> that denial, hypocrite. >===================== >You should know all I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I see one, Rick Etter. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. >> >> >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get >> >> you to where you want to be. >> >> >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without >> >> killing animals; >> > >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand >> >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand >> if only you knew the difference between per se and >> per accidens. > >I understand the difference. It's clear from your response here that you do not. >BTW, both meat and vegetables >can theoretically exist without killing animals. I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food from road kill or from animals that have died from natural causes, but the meat being discussed here is the type which is sourced from animals killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals are per se, while the deaths of animals associated with crop production are per accidens. If you'd understood these terms like you said you had, you would not have made this error. >> >but >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered >> >without? >> >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? > >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) You need to support your claim, and my question asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very real possibility that the drugs found using animal research might still have been found without it, or that they may have been discovered even earlier. The onus on you is to support your claim. >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? >> > >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that >> >needed to be done. >> >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was >> needed, and nor have you answered the question >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions >> of your own is a dodge. > >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done >per accidens is not so important. It's crucial, because without that distinction you cannot compare the moral status behind these goods. As with everything about you, you have no coherent principle or reasoning behind your position. >What matters is the consequences No. The consequences of an action cannot judge whether that act was good or bad. An action can only be judged on the principle involved behind it. You simply don't know what you're talking about. >> >If you consumed plantation sugar >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar? >> >> Neither. > >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not >responsible for supporting the meat industry. No, because the deaths associated with the meat industry are per se while the deaths associated with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't grasped any of this at all. >In >that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating >the meat? Because the death of the animal was per se and intentional rather than per accidens. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>newst1sh1tj2us6j2jtmusjqgotn954u4hepq@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:6gpqh1lgsp37auev3stejlk63qfii4dcdh@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>>>=================== >>>>>>>>No, they >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>>>fool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>>>============== >>>>> >>>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>>>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>>===================== >>>>ROTFLMAO >>> >>> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and >>> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before >>> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you >>> in more than one case. >>======================= >>Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always >>snipped without annotation, hypocrite... > > Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while > editing your opponent's sentences before responding > to them is not. =============== No it is not fool. Not mwhen you constantly want the meaning changed or out of context, or to eliminate that which shows you have lied, again.... Only a liar and a cheat alters his > opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote > something he didn't intend or was disputing, and > that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. ===================== And being the head liar and cheat of usenet you have complete command of that arena, killer... > >>>>>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, >>>>>>>>> you'll >>>>>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike >>>>>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of >>>>>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you >>>>>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more >>>>>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the >>>>>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing >>>>>>>>> feed for the animals you eat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by >>>>>>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and >>>>>>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he >>>>>>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat." >>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you >>>>>>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue >>>>>>>>> ranting >>>>>>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they >>>>>>>>> eat, >>>>>>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to >>>>>>>>> Usenet, >>>>>>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the >>>>>>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have >>>>>>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> production of foods you eat, as in; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, >>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you >>>>>>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all? >>>>>>========================== >>>>>>No where have I ever stated that, fool.... >>>>> >>>>> Yes you have, liar. >>>>=================== >>>>Nope >>> >>> Your statements are still on this page proving you >>> did, liar, so there's no use in trying to lie your way >>> out of this one. >>======================== >>No, they do not, fool. > > They reveal your denial of the collateral deaths > associated with the production of the grass fed > beef you claim to eat, yet all the while while > denying them you feebly attack vegans for the > alleged collateral deaths associated with every > morsel of food they eat, and even the power > they use to send messages to Usenet. How's > that for hypocrisy? ======================== Yes, how is yours again, lying snip king? > >>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>> >>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>> hypocrite. >>>>====================== >>>>True statements, fool. >>> >>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>====================== >>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... > > Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because > believe it or not the production of grass fed > beef does accrue collateral deaths like any > other food stuff. ================= Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I eat, fool... Your denial of this fact while > trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths > associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and > priceless at the same time. ==================== It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. > >>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>> that denial, hypocrite. >>===================== >>You should know all > > I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I > see one, Rick Etter. ================ Thanks for again proving my point, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:26:13 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message news >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically >>>>>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>>>>=================== >>>>>>>>>No, they >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>>>>fool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>>>>============== >>>>>> >>>>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>>>>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>>>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>>>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>>>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>>>===================== >>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>> >>>> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and >>>> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before >>>> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you >>>> in more than one case. >>>======================= >>>Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always >>>snipped without annotation, hypocrite... >> >> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >> to them is not. >=============== >No it is not fool. That's what I said, dummy. >> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >===================== >And And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be a liar who, rather than respond to what your opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it appear he wrote something he didn't intend or was under dispute before then responding to it. >>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>> >>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>====================== >>>>>True statements, fool. >>>> >>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>====================== >>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >> >> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >> believe it or not the production of grass fed >> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >> other food stuff. >================= >Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I eat, >fool... Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan you've tried to attack on this issue concerning collateral deaths well. >> Your denial of this fact while >> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >> priceless at the same time. >==================== >It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. I don't deny the fact that the production of my food accrues collateral deaths, liar, and neither do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral deaths associated with the production of your food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat eater gets a free pass from all the other meat eaters on these forums while they let your denial go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a double standard from the meat eating side of these forums, so thanks for that. >>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>===================== >>>You should know all >> >> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >> see one, Rick Etter. >================ >Thanks No problem, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:26:13 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:ardth1p65f59aj1q8paf711cem3kpcomgq@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>newst1sh1tj2us6j2jtmusjqgotn954u4hepq@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:6gpqh1lgsp37auev3stejlk63qfii4dcdh@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>automatically >>>>>>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>>>>>=================== >>>>>>>>>>No, they >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>>>>>fool. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>>>>>============== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>>>>>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>>>>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>>>>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>>>>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>> >>>>> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and >>>>> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before >>>>> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you >>>>> in more than one case. >>>>======================= >>>>Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always >>>>snipped without annotation, hypocrite... >>> >>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>> to them is not. >>=============== >>No it is not fool. > > That's what I said, dummy. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. ...Not when you constantly want the meaning changed or out of context, or to eliminate that which shows you have lied, again.... > >>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>===================== >>And > > And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be > a liar who, rather than respond to what your > opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it > appear he wrote something he didn't intend or > was under dispute before then responding to it. ===================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>> >>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>====================== >>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>> >>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>> other food stuff. >>================= >>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I >>eat, >>fool... > > Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan > you've tried to attack on this issue concerning > collateral deaths well. ======================= Dodge noted fool. I see that as usual, you have nothing but ignorance, syupidity, and delusion. > >>> Your denial of this fact while >>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>> priceless at the same time. >>==================== >>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. > > I don't deny the fact that the production of my > food accrues collateral deaths, liar, and neither > do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged > denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral > deaths associated with the production of your > food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat > eater gets a free pass from all the other meat > eaters on these forums while they let your denial > go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a > double standard from the meat eating side of > these forums, so thanks for that. =================== Nope... > >>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>===================== >>>>You should know all >>> >>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>> see one, Rick Etter. >>================ >>Thanks > > No problem, hypocrite. ============== Thanks for again proving my point, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:16:42 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:26:13 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message news >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan >>>>>>>>>>>>>automatically >>>>>>>>>>>>>reduces >>>>>>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with; >>>>>>>>>>>=================== >>>>>>>>>>>No, they >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything, >>>>>>>>>>>fool. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates >>>>>>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at >>>>>>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the >>>>>>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in >>>>>>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." >>>>>>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display... >>>>>>>>>============== >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences >>>>>>>> without notation before responding to them, liar >>>>>>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that >>>>>>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying, >>>>>>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter. >>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>>> >>>>>> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and >>>>>> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before >>>>>> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you >>>>>> in more than one case. >>>>>======================= >>>>>Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always >>>>>snipped without annotation, hypocrite... >>>> >>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>> to them is not. >>>=============== >>>No it is not fool. >> >> That's what I said, dummy. >=================== >LOL You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to edit your opponent's sentences before then responding to them. You've nothing to laugh about at all. >>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>===================== >>>And >> >> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >> was under dispute before then responding to it. >===================== >LOL Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told that your cowardice and inability to respond to what is actually put in front of you marks you down as a pathetic, incapable troll. >>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>====================== >>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>> >>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>> other food stuff. >>>================= >>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I >>>eat, fool... >> >> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >> collateral deaths well. >======================= >Dodge noted fool. I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made the claim that the production of your so-called grass fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. >>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>> priceless at the same time. >>>==================== >>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >> >> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, Yet your statements say otherwise; "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." and "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? >> and neither >> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >> deaths associated with the production of your >> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >> double standard from the meat eating side of >> these forums, so thanks for that. >=================== >Nope... Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan side of these debates and you can't even see it. >>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>===================== >>>>>You should know all >>>> >>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>================ >>>Thanks >> >> No problem, hypocrite. >============== >Thanks No problem, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... snipping... >>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>>> to them is not. >>>>=============== >>>>No it is not fool. >>> >>> That's what I said, dummy. >>=================== >>LOL > > You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just > shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to > edit your opponent's sentences before then > responding to them. You've nothing to laugh > about at all. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>===================== >>>>And >>> >>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >>> was under dispute before then responding to it. >>===================== >>LOL > > Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told > that your cowardice and inability to respond to > what is actually put in front of you marks you > down as a pathetic, incapable troll. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>>> >>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>>> other food stuff. >>>>================= >>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I >>>>eat, fool... >>> >>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >>> collateral deaths well. >>======================= >>Dodge noted fool. > > I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. =================== You are fool. Try the truth once in awhile. It will feel good.... You've made > the claim that the production of your so-called grass > fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, > and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly > denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. > You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. ===================== Nope. I've explained where mine comes from fool. I've explained where yours comes from fool. You lose.... > >>>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>>> priceless at the same time. >>>>==================== >>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >>> >>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, > > Yet your statements say otherwise; =================== No, they don't, fool. Try reading for comprehension. I know, that's impassible for your 2 remaining drug-impaired braincells, eh hypocrite? > > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > > and > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > > You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? =========================== Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, eh killer? > >>> and neither >>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >>> deaths associated with the production of your >>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >>> double standard from the meat eating side of >>> these forums, so thanks for that. >>=================== >>Nope... > > Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the > perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. > There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan > side of these debates and you can't even see it. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>You should know all >>>>> >>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>>================ >>>>Thanks >>> >>> No problem, hypocrite. >>============== >>Thanks > > No problem, hypocrite. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your idiocy, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:14:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >snipping... > >>>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>>>> to them is not. >>>>>=============== >>>>>No it is not fool. >>>> >>>> That's what I said, dummy. >>>=================== >>>LOL >> >> You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just >> shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to >> edit your opponent's sentences before then >> responding to them. You've nothing to laugh >> about at all. >=================== >LOL You're a moron, Etter, a stupid lying moron. >>>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>>===================== >>>>>And >>>> >>>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >>>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >>>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >>>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >>>> was under dispute before then responding to it. >>>===================== >>>LOL >> >> Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told >> that your cowardice and inability to respond to >> what is actually put in front of you marks you >> down as a pathetic, incapable troll. >=================== >LOL Keep laughing, moron. The first and last laugh is on you. >>>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>>>> other food stuff. >>>>>================= >>>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef I >>>>>eat, fool... >>>> >>>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >>>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >>>> collateral deaths well. >>>======================= >>>Dodge noted fool. >> >> I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made >> the claim that the production of your so-called grass >> fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, >> and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly >> denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. >> You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. >===================== >Nope. Yes, you have, although I don't expect any honesty from you. >>>>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>>>> priceless at the same time. >>>>>==================== >>>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >>>> >>>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >>>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, >> >> Yet your statements say otherwise; >=================== >No, they don't, fool. Yes, they do, and they're just below this line. >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> >> and >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >> >> You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? >=========================== >Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, eh >killer? They reveal your denial over the collateral deaths associated with the production of grass fed beef you claim to eat. Keep up that denial and your lies, hypocrite; they serve me well. >>>> and neither >>>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >>>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >>>> deaths associated with the production of your >>>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >>>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >>>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >>>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >>>> double standard from the meat eating side of >>>> these forums, so thanks for that. >>>=================== >>>Nope... >> >> Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the >> perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. >> There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan >> side of these debates and you can't even see it. >=================== >LOL It's obvious that I'm talking with an imbecile, but that works in my favour. >>>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of >>>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>You should know all >>>>>> >>>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>>>================ >>>>>Thanks >>>> >>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>============== >>>Thanks >> >> No problem, hypocrite. >=================== >LOL Thanks No problem, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:14:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >> >>snipping... >> >>>>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>>>>> to them is not. >>>>>>=============== >>>>>>No it is not fool. >>>>> >>>>> That's what I said, dummy. >>>>=================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just >>> shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to >>> edit your opponent's sentences before then >>> responding to them. You've nothing to laugh >>> about at all. >>=================== >>LOL > > You're a moron, Etter, a stupid lying moron. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your sleazy idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>And >>>>> >>>>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >>>>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >>>>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >>>>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >>>>> was under dispute before then responding to it. >>>>===================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told >>> that your cowardice and inability to respond to >>> what is actually put in front of you marks you >>> down as a pathetic, incapable troll. >>=================== >>LOL > > Keep laughing, moron. The first and last laugh is on you. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your sleazy idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>>>>> other food stuff. >>>>>>================= >>>>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef >>>>>>I >>>>>>eat, fool... >>>>> >>>>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >>>>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >>>>> collateral deaths well. >>>>======================= >>>>Dodge noted fool. >>> >>> I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made >>> the claim that the production of your so-called grass >>> fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, >>> and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly >>> denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. >>> You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. >>===================== >>Nope. > > Yes, you have, although I don't expect any honesty > from you. ===================== Nope. I've explained where mine comes from fool. I've explained where yours comes from fool. You lose.... > >>>>>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>>>>> priceless at the same time. >>>>>>==================== >>>>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >>>>> >>>>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >>>>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, >>> >>> Yet your statements say otherwise; >>=================== >>No, they don't, fool. > > Yes, they do, and they're just below this line. ===================== Nope. I've explained where mine comes from fool. I've explained where yours comes from fool. You lose.... > >>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>> >>> You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? >>=========================== >>Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, eh >>killer? > > They reveal your denial over the collateral deaths > associated with the production of grass fed beef > you claim to eat. Keep up that denial and your lies, > hypocrite; they serve me well. ==================== Now you've changed you claim again, fool. Try to keep saying the same thing once in awhile, killer... > >>>>> and neither >>>>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >>>>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >>>>> deaths associated with the production of your >>>>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >>>>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >>>>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >>>>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >>>>> double standard from the meat eating side of >>>>> these forums, so thanks for that. >>>>=================== >>>>Nope... >>> >>> Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the >>> perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. >>> There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan >>> side of these debates and you can't even see it. >>=================== >>LOL > > It's obvious that I'm talking with an imbecile, but that > works in my favour. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your sleazy idiocy, hypocrite. > >>>>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>You should know all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>>>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>>>>================ >>>>>>Thanks >>>>> >>>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>>============== >>>>Thanks >>> >>> No problem, hypocrite. >>=================== >>LOL Thanks > > No problem, hypocrite. =================== LOL Thanks for again proving your sleazy idiocy, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:16:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:14:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>snipping... >>> >>>>>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>>>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>>>>>> to them is not. >>>>>>>=============== >>>>>>>No it is not fool. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what I said, dummy. >>>>>=================== >>>>>LOL >>>> >>>> You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just >>>> shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to >>>> edit your opponent's sentences before then >>>> responding to them. You've nothing to laugh >>>> about at all. >>>=================== >>>LOL >> >> You're a moron, Etter, a stupid lying moron. >=================== >LOL You don't find it funny, moron. You've been caught out. >>>>>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>>>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>>>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>>>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>And >>>>>> >>>>>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >>>>>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >>>>>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >>>>>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >>>>>> was under dispute before then responding to it. >>>>>===================== >>>>>LOL >>>> >>>> Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told >>>> that your cowardice and inability to respond to >>>> what is actually put in front of you marks you >>>> down as a pathetic, incapable troll. >>>=================== >>>LOL >> >> Keep laughing, moron. The first and last laugh is on you. >=================== >LOL You're not laughing, moron. >>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's >>>>>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>>>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>>>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>>>>>> other food stuff. >>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the beef >>>>>>>I >>>>>>>eat, fool... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >>>>>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >>>>>> collateral deaths well. >>>>>======================= >>>>>Dodge noted fool. >>>> >>>> I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made >>>> the claim that the production of your so-called grass >>>> fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, >>>> and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly >>>> denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. >>>> You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. >>>===================== >>>Nope. >> >> Yes, you have, although I don't expect any honesty >> from you. >===================== >Nope. Exactly. >>>>>>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>>>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>>>>>> priceless at the same time. >>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >>>>>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, >>>> >>>> Yet your statements say otherwise; >>>=================== >>>No, they don't, fool. >> >> Yes, they do, and they're just below this line. >===================== >Nope. Yes, they are. Read them again. (below) >>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>> >>>> You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? >>>=========================== >>>Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, eh >>>killer? >> >> They reveal your denial over the collateral deaths >> associated with the production of grass fed beef >> you claim to eat. Keep up that denial and your lies, >> hypocrite; they serve me well. >==================== >Now you've changed you claim again, fool. No, I haven't changed anything. You lied, Etter. Try laughing that off again, seeing as it's the only option left open to you. >>>>>> and neither >>>>>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >>>>>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >>>>>> deaths associated with the production of your >>>>>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >>>>>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >>>>>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >>>>>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >>>>>> double standard from the meat eating side of >>>>>> these forums, so thanks for that. >>>>>=================== >>>>>Nope... >>>> >>>> Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the >>>> perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. >>>> There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan >>>> side of these debates and you can't even see it. >>>=================== >>>LOL >> >> It's obvious that I'm talking with an imbecile, but that >> works in my favour. >=================== >LOL You write like a child swapping text messages on a mobile phone. >>>>>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the >>>>>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention >>>>>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>>You should know all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>>>>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>>>>>================ >>>>>>>Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>>>============== >>>>>Thanks >>>> >>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>=================== >>>LOL Thanks >> >> No problem, hypocrite. >=================== >LOL Thanks No problem, hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:16:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:14:55 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>> >>>>snipping... >>>> >>>>>>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while >>>>>>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding >>>>>>>>> to them is not. >>>>>>>>=============== >>>>>>>>No it is not fool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what I said, dummy. >>>>>>=================== >>>>>>LOL >>>>> >>>>> You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just >>>>> shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to >>>>> edit your opponent's sentences before then >>>>> responding to them. You've nothing to laugh >>>>> about at all. >>>>=================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> You're a moron, Etter, a stupid lying moron. >>=================== >>LOL > > You don't find it funny, moron. You've been caught out. ======================= I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > >>>>>>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his >>>>>>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote >>>>>>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and >>>>>>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. >>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>And >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be >>>>>>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your >>>>>>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it >>>>>>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or >>>>>>> was under dispute before then responding to it. >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>LOL >>>>> >>>>> Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told >>>>> that your cowardice and inability to respond to >>>>> what is actually put in front of you marks you >>>>> down as a pathetic, incapable troll. >>>>=================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> Keep laughing, moron. The first and last laugh is on you. >>=================== >>LOL > > You're not laughing, moron. ======================= I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Period." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>>>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, >>>>>>>>>>>>> hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>>>>True statements, fool. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the >>>>>>>>>>> vegan's >>>>>>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according >>>>>>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. >>>>>>>>>>====================== >>>>>>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because >>>>>>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed >>>>>>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any >>>>>>>>> other food stuff. >>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the >>>>>>>>beef >>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>eat, fool... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan >>>>>>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning >>>>>>> collateral deaths well. >>>>>>======================= >>>>>>Dodge noted fool. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made >>>>> the claim that the production of your so-called grass >>>>> fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, >>>>> and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly >>>>> denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. >>>>> You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. >>>>===================== >>>>Nope. >>> >>> Yes, you have, although I don't expect any honesty >>> from you. >>===================== >>Nope. > > Exactly. ======================= You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > >>>>>>>>> Your denial of this fact while >>>>>>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths >>>>>>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and >>>>>>>>> priceless at the same time. >>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my >>>>>>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, >>>>> >>>>> Yet your statements say otherwise; >>>>=================== >>>>No, they don't, fool. >>> >>> Yes, they do, and they're just below this line. >>===================== >>Nope. > > Yes, they are. Read them again. (below) ========================= Yep, you continue to ly and and display your hypocrisy. Thanks for the idiocy, fool, it's great to see... > >>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>>> >>>>> You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? >>>>=========================== >>>>Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, >>>>eh >>>>killer? >>> >>> They reveal your denial over the collateral deaths >>> associated with the production of grass fed beef >>> you claim to eat. Keep up that denial and your lies, >>> hypocrite; they serve me well. >>==================== >>Now you've changed you claim again, fool. > > No, I haven't changed anything. =================== Yes, you did. Try reading what you wrote, fool... You lied, Etter. Try > laughing that off again, seeing as it's the only option > left open to you. ======================= I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > >>>>>>> and neither >>>>>>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged >>>>>>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral >>>>>>> deaths associated with the production of your >>>>>>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat >>>>>>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat >>>>>>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial >>>>>>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a >>>>>>> double standard from the meat eating side of >>>>>>> these forums, so thanks for that. >>>>>>=================== >>>>>>Nope... >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the >>>>> perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. >>>>> There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan >>>>> side of these debates and you can't even see it. >>>>=================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> It's obvious that I'm talking with an imbecile, but that >>> works in my favour. >>=================== >>LOL > > You write like a child swapping text messages on > a mobile phone. > =================== What a hoot!! At least I understand what is being written, fool. You can't even follow the discussion without proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. >>>>>>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and >>>>>>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, >>>>>>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only >>>>>>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in >>>>>>>>>>> contention >>>>>>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up >>>>>>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. >>>>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>>>You should know all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I >>>>>>>>> see one, Rick Etter. >>>>>>>>================ >>>>>>>>Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>>>>============== >>>>>>Thanks >>>>> >>>>> No problem, hypocrite. >>>>=================== >>>>LOL Thanks >>> >>> No problem, hypocrite. >>=================== >>LOL Thanks > > No problem, hypocrite. ======================= I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. |
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf
"rick" > wrote in message news > > "Derek" > wrote in message > ... > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:16:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >>"Derek" > wrote in message > . .. > >>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:14:55 GMT, "rick" > > >>> wrote: > >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message > m... > >>>> > >>>>snipping... > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while > >>>>>>>>> editing your opponent's sentences before responding > >>>>>>>>> to them is not. > >>>>>>>>=============== > >>>>>>>>No it is not fool. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's what I said, dummy. > >>>>>>=================== > >>>>>>LOL > >>>>> > >>>>> You've nothing to laugh about, Etter. I've just > >>>>> shown you to be a liar whose last resort is to > >>>>> edit your opponent's sentences before then > >>>>> responding to them. You've nothing to laugh > >>>>> about at all. > >>>>=================== > >>>>LOL > >>> > >>> You're a moron, Etter, a stupid lying moron. > >>=================== > >>LOL > > > > You don't find it funny, moron. You've been caught out. > ======================= > I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, > sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Only a liar and a cheat alters his > >>>>>>>>> opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote > >>>>>>>>> something he didn't intend or was disputing, and > >>>>>>>>> that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine. > >>>>>>>>===================== > >>>>>>>>And > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And nothing, Etter. You've shown yourself to be > >>>>>>> a liar who, rather than respond to what your > >>>>>>> opponent writes, edits his sentences to make it > >>>>>>> appear he wrote something he didn't intend or > >>>>>>> was under dispute before then responding to it. > >>>>>>===================== > >>>>>>LOL > >>>>> > >>>>> Laugh it off if it makes you feel better, but be told > >>>>> that your cowardice and inability to respond to > >>>>> what is actually put in front of you marks you > >>>>> down as a pathetic, incapable troll. > >>>>=================== > >>>>LOL > >>> > >>> Keep laughing, moron. The first and last laugh is on you. > >>=================== > >>LOL > > > > You're not laughing, moron. > ======================= > I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, > sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Period." > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hypocrite. > >>>>>>>>>>>>====================== > >>>>>>>>>>>>True statements, fool. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the > >>>>>>>>>>> vegan's > >>>>>>>>>>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according > >>>>>>>>>>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't. > >>>>>>>>>>====================== > >>>>>>>>>>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because > >>>>>>>>> believe it or not the production of grass fed > >>>>>>>>> beef does accrue collateral deaths like any > >>>>>>>>> other food stuff. > >>>>>>>>================= > >>>>>>>>Show me the animals that die in the production of the > >>>>>>>>beef > >>>>>>>>I > >>>>>>>>eat, fool... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your denial is pathetic, but it serves every vegan > >>>>>>> you've tried to attack on this issue concerning > >>>>>>> collateral deaths well. > >>>>>>======================= > >>>>>>Dodge noted fool. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not dodging anything; YOU are. You've made > >>>>> the claim that the production of your so-called grass > >>>>> fed beef doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths, > >>>>> and this is while you try to attack vegans for allegedly > >>>>> denying the collateral deaths associated with their veg. > >>>>> You've got some explaining to do, hypocrite. > >>>>===================== > >>>>Nope. > >>> > >>> Yes, you have, although I don't expect any honesty > >>> from you. > >>===================== > >>Nope. > > > > Exactly. > ======================= > You keep proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! > Keep up the idiocy, fool. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Your denial of this fact while > >>>>>>>>> trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths > >>>>>>>>> associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and > >>>>>>>>> priceless at the same time. > >>>>>>>>==================== > >>>>>>>>It's you that is in denial, hypocrite. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't deny the fact that the production of my > >>>>>>> food accrues collateral deaths, liar, > >>>>> > >>>>> Yet your statements say otherwise; > >>>>=================== > >>>>No, they don't, fool. > >>> > >>> Yes, they do, and they're just below this line. > >>===================== > >>Nope. > > > > Yes, they are. Read them again. (below) > ========================= > Yep, you continue to ly and and display your hypocrisy. Thanks > for the idiocy, fool, it's great to see... > > > > > >>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > >>>>> > >>>>> and > >>>>> > >>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > >>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > >>>>> > >>>>> You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? > >>>>=========================== > >>>>Too bad you can't make them say what you wantb them to say, > >>>>eh > >>>>killer? > >>> > >>> They reveal your denial over the collateral deaths > >>> associated with the production of grass fed beef > >>> you claim to eat. Keep up that denial and your lies, > >>> hypocrite; they serve me well. > >>==================== > >>Now you've changed you claim again, fool. > > > > No, I haven't changed anything. > =================== > Yes, you did. Try reading what you wrote, fool... > > You lied, Etter. Try > > laughing that off again, seeing as it's the only option > > left open to you. > ======================= > I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, > sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and neither > >>>>>>> do the vegans you try to attack for their alleged > >>>>>>> denial either. Only YOU deny the collateral > >>>>>>> deaths associated with the production of your > >>>>>>> food stuffs, hypocrite, and only YOU, a meat > >>>>>>> eater gets a free pass from all the other meat > >>>>>>> eaters on these forums while they let your denial > >>>>>>> go without mention. Your hypocrisy reveals a > >>>>>>> double standard from the meat eating side of > >>>>>>> these forums, so thanks for that. > >>>>>>=================== > >>>>>>Nope... > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it most certainly does. Your hypocrisy is the > >>>>> perfect foil to reveal the meat eater's double standards. > >>>>> There's no doubting that. You're a gift to the vegan > >>>>> side of these debates and you can't even see it. > >>>>=================== > >>>>LOL > >>> > >>> It's obvious that I'm talking with an imbecile, but that > >>> works in my favour. > >>=================== > >>LOL > > > > You write like a child swapping text messages on > > a mobile phone. > > =================== > What a hoot!! At least I understand what is being written, fool. > You can't even follow the discussion without > proving your lying, sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the > idiocy, fool. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and > >>>>>>>>>>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot, > >>>>>>>>>>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only > >>>>>>>>>>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in > >>>>>>>>>>> contention > >>>>>>>>>>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up > >>>>>>>>>>> that denial, hypocrite. > >>>>>>>>>>===================== > >>>>>>>>>>You should know all > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I > >>>>>>>>> see one, Rick Etter. > >>>>>>>>================ > >>>>>>>>Thanks > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No problem, hypocrite. > >>>>>>============== > >>>>>>Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> No problem, hypocrite. > >>>>=================== > >>>>LOL Thanks > >>> > >>> No problem, hypocrite. > >>=================== > >>LOL Thanks > > > > No problem, hypocrite. > ======================= > I'm laughing hysterically fool. You keep proving your lying, > sleazy hypocrisy with each post! Keep up the idiocy, fool. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but > no real benefits" > > Reuters > > LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors > of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to > conventional medicines, but according to a new study > they may just as well be taking nothing. > > The study, published in Friday's edition of the > respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger > the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and > adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy. > > more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/ > > > Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage. > These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for > uneducated, credulous dummies. LMAO, I doubt they tested *every* single homeopathic medicine. Where's the data, btw? I hear claims but see no data whatsoever. Jesus, Rudy, I thought I killfiled your sorry ass. Let me try that again. |
|
|||
|
|||
Tyrone Biggums wrote:
>>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but >>no real benefits" >> >>Reuters >> >>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors >>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to >>conventional medicines, but according to a new study >>they may just as well be taking nothing. >> >>The study, published in Friday's edition of the >>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger >>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and >>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy. >> >>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/ >> >> >>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage. >> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for >>uneducated, credulous dummies. > > > LMAO, I doubt they tested *every* single homeopathic medicine. They wouldn't need to test every single one. The whole pseudoscience of homeopathy is easily explained because homeopathy is nothing but sugar pills. > Where's the data, btw? http://tinyurl.com/ddwue > I hear claims but see no data whatsoever. From the above... -------- Methods Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models. Findings 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65–1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39–0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials). Interpretation Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.... Our study powerfully illustrates the interplay and cumulative effect of different sources of bias. We acknowledge that to prove a negative is impossible,31 but we have shown that the effects seen in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis. By contrast, with identical methods, we found that the benefits of conventional medicine are unlikely to be explained by unspecific effects. -------- Read it and weep, gullible dolt. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wrote:
>>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf > > I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. Which is 24 minutes, 50 seconds longer than I could. Is your pain medication responsible for your masochistic tolerance level? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:53:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf >> >> I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. > >Which is 24 minutes, 50 seconds longer than I could. Is your pain >medication responsible for your masochistic tolerance level? You haven't the slightest idea about my tolerance levels, queer. You wouldn't even be able to stand after taking what I take on a daily basis for pain management, let alone anything else, and I've been tolerating it for over ten years, with a lifetime of it still ahead of me. You're just a boy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wrote:
>>>>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf >>> >>>I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. >> >>Which is 24 minutes, 50 seconds longer than I could. Is your pain >>medication responsible for your masochistic tolerance level? > > You wouldn't even be able to stand after taking what I take > on a daily basis I wouldn't stupidly cripple myself like you did, either, dummy. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:04:42 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf >>>> >>>>I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. >>> >>>Which is 24 minutes, 50 seconds longer than I could. Is your pain >>>medication responsible for your masochistic tolerance level? >> >> You wouldn't even be able to stand after taking what I take >> on a daily basis > >I wouldn't stupidly cripple myself like you did, either, dummy. I found a magic genie lantern in Pearl's back yard one day, and the first wish I made was to be forever crippled. Not from anything to do with motor abilities that stop my legs from working, but from agonies you'll never experience. It's a good thing, too, because weaklings like yourself would never cope with it, not even for a week. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf >>>>> >>>>>I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. >>>> >>>>Which is 24 minutes, 50 seconds longer than I could. Is your pain >>>>medication responsible for your masochistic tolerance level? >>> >>>You wouldn't even be able to stand after taking what I take >>>on a daily basis >> >>I wouldn't stupidly cripple myself like you did, either, dummy. > > I found a magic genie lantern in Pearl's back yard one day Drunken, lying old tosser. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message > Read it and weep, gullible dolt. The sample is ridiculous. I have 15+ years of research experience. 65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic factors, environment, etc. etc. etc. This "study" is a sad joke and proves nothing. Try again. Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > >http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf > > I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:01:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >> >http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf >> >> I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. > >http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf > > Obviously, the cat sat staring into nothing in the background is made of sterner stuff than I am. It hasn't moved for over an hour now. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:01:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:21:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >> > >> >http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf > >> > >> I couldn't stand more than 25 minutes of it. > > > > http://www.thestatenislandboys.com/A...hyerassoff.swf > > > > > > Obviously, the cat sat staring into nothing in the background > is made of sterner stuff than I am. It hasn't moved for over > an hour now. LOL! |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> >> [..] > >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan > >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you > >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with > >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. > >> >> > >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still > >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing > >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that > >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get > >> >> you to where you want to be. > >> >> > >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. > >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the > >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified > >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without > >> >> killing animals; > >> > > >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand > >> > >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand > >> if only you knew the difference between per se and > >> per accidens. > > > >I understand the difference. > > It's clear from your response here that you do not. > > >BTW, both meat and vegetables > >can theoretically exist without killing animals. > > I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their > food from road kill or from animals that have died > from natural causes, but the meat being discussed > here is the type which is sourced from animals > killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals > are per se, while the deaths of animals associated > with crop production are per accidens. If you'd > understood these terms like you said you had, you > would not have made this error. It appears to me that you are operating a double standard here. You claim that the deaths associated with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds that we are talking about meat that has been sourced from animals deliberately killed for their meat but still claim that those associated with crop production are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill animals. > >> >but > >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly > >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered > >> >without? > >> > >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? > > > >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is > >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) > > You need to support your claim, and my question > asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very > real possibility that the drugs found using animal > research might still have been found without it, or > that they may have been discovered even earlier. > The onus on you is to support your claim. I believe the onus is on you for two reasons: 1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that drugs could exist without killing animals in medical research and I challenged you on it. 2. You are asking me to prove a negative. If the medical knowledge used to develop these drugs could have been acquired without killing animals, then you can explain how the knowledge could have been obtained. This is a much easier task than explaining how it could not have been obtained. However, in support of my claim I shall point out that the Dr Hadwen Trust's website admits that: "In many cases, appropriate alternatives still need to be developed. But other factors are involved too:" http://www.crueltyfreeshop.com/drhadwen/faq.htm > >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" > >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, > >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now > >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in > >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy > >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". > >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? > >> > > >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that > >> >needed to be done. > >> > >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was > >> needed, and nor have you answered the question > >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions > >> of your own is a dodge. > > > >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done > >per accidens is not so important. > > It's crucial, because without that distinction you > cannot compare the moral status behind these > goods. As with everything about you, you have > no coherent principle or reasoning behind your > position. Although I have admitted I have no way to classify the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong" I can still compare them in relative terms according to the actual consequences of their production. > >What matters is the consequences > > No. The consequences of an action cannot judge > whether that act was good or bad. An action can > only be judged on the principle involved behind it. > You simply don't know what you're talking about. In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens but what practical purpose does that serve? > >> >If you consumed plantation sugar > >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for > >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, > >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar? > >> > >> Neither. > > > >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar > >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade > >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not > >responsible for supporting the meat industry. > > No, because the deaths associated with the meat > industry are per se while the deaths associated > with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't > grasped any of this at all. Again, if you wish to make a distinction between meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained using forced labour. > >In > >that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating > >the meat? > > Because the death of the animal was per se and > intentional rather than per accidens. See above. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Sep 2005 10:23:05 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan >> >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you >> >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with >> >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. >> >> >> >> >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still >> >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing >> >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that >> >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get >> >> >> you to where you want to be. >> >> >> >> >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction >> >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something >> >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is >> >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. >> >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the >> >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified >> >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without >> >> >> killing animals; >> >> > >> >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand >> >> >> >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand >> >> if only you knew the difference between per se and >> >> per accidens. >> > >> >I understand the difference. >> >> It's clear from your response here that you do not. >> >> >BTW, both meat and vegetables >> >can theoretically exist without killing animals. >> >> I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their >> food from road kill or from animals that have died >> from natural causes, but the meat being discussed >> here is the type which is sourced from animals >> killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals >> are per se, while the deaths of animals associated >> with crop production are per accidens. If you'd >> understood these terms like you said you had, you >> would not have made this error. > >It appears to me that you are operating a double >standard here. You claim that the deaths associated >with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds >that we are talking about meat that has been sourced >from animals deliberately killed for their meat but >still claim that those associated with crop production >are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been >sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill >animals. You're confusing "accident" with "per accidens", believing that, just because the crops are intentionally sprayed with chemicals to kill animals (non-accidentally), the deaths cannot therefore be per accidens, and this is where you're going wrong. Look further up this page where I initially explained the terms "per se" and "per accidens". "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something is classified as "essence" it means that that property is always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." Where farmed meat is concerned, the deaths of animals is a property that is always necessary for that object's existence; you cannot source farmed meat without killing the animals. Those deaths are per se: a property that is always absolutely necessary for THAT meat's existence. Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's) are not necessary for that object's existence; you can source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist. >> >> >but >> >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly >> >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered >> >> >without? >> >> >> >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? >> > >> >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is >> >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) >> >> You need to support your claim, and my question >> asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very >> real possibility that the drugs found using animal >> research might still have been found without it, or >> that they may have been discovered even earlier. >> The onus on you is to support your claim. > >I believe the onus is on you for two reasons: > >1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that >drugs could exist without killing animals in medical >research and I challenged you on it. Drugs can exist and be found without killing animals. [Two examples of drugs developed without animal research are penicillin and the smallpox vaccine. The smallpox vaccine was developed by a scientist who noticed that everyone in a particular village had contracted smallpox except one person: the milkmaid. It appeared that the milkmaid had been exposed to cowpox through her daily contact with cows, and her body developed antigens against the cowpox and those antigens were effective against the smallpox. Cowpox is closely related to smallpox, but much milder. The scientist began exposing healthy people to cowpox (without testing his theory on animals) and found that those people became immune to smallpox. Penicillin was discovered accidentally by a scientist who noticed that germs would not grow on certain areas of certain petri dishes in his lab. Upon testing these areas, he found that those areas contained penicillin. Just because a drug or treatment was developed using animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been developed *without* animal research.] http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/vivisec.htm Those are just two examples where drugs can and do exist without killing animals. Ancient drugs and remedies found in rainforest areas are other examples where the deaths of animals weren't necessary. So, the deaths currently associated with drug production are not necessary for the existence of drugs, and are therefore per accidens. >> >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" >> >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, >> >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now >> >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in >> >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy >> >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". >> >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? >> >> > >> >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that >> >> >needed to be done. >> >> >> >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was >> >> needed, and nor have you answered the question >> >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions >> >> of your own is a dodge. >> > >> >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done >> >per accidens is not so important. >> >> It's crucial, because without that distinction you >> cannot compare the moral status behind these >> goods. As with everything about you, you have >> no coherent principle or reasoning behind your >> position. > >Although I have admitted I have no way to classify >the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong" Exactly: because you haven't grasped the distinction between per se and per accidens, even though you thought you did. >I can still compare them in relative terms according >to the actual consequences of their production. Then according to you, the moral status of farmed meat is good if the consequences of its production can be shown to be good. Conversely, the moral status of veg must be bad if the consequences of its production is bad. You need to think that through again. >> >What matters is the consequences >> >> No. The consequences of an action cannot judge >> whether that act was good or bad. An action can >> only be judged on the principle involved behind it. >> You simply don't know what you're talking about. > >In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks >to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to >appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such >as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens >but what practical purpose does that serve? Since when was it required that a philosophical concept must have a practical purpose? >> >> >If you consumed plantation sugar >> >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for >> >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, >> >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar? >> >> >> >> Neither. >> > >> >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar >> >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade >> >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not >> >responsible for supporting the meat industry. >> >> No, because the deaths associated with the meat >> industry are per se while the deaths associated >> with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't >> grasped any of this at all. > >Again, if you wish to make a distinction between >meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by >the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems >inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar >obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained >using forced labour. No, it isn't inconsistent at all. A valid moral distinction can be made between scavenged and farmed meat. Scavenged meat can be sourced from animals that haven't been killed by us in order to get it, while farmed meat cannot exist without our first killing the animal to get it. Get it? Using sugar to make an analogy with meat is absurd, since we don't kill sugar in the first place. >> >In >> >that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating >> >the meat? >> >> Because the death of the animal was per se and >> intentional rather than per accidens. > >See above. You're in a mess. Sort yourself out by trying to retain some of what I've explained. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > On 10 Sep 2005 10:23:05 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: > >> >> >> [..] > >> >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan > >> >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you > >> >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with > >> >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still > >> >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing > >> >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that > >> >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get > >> >> >> you to where you want to be. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > >> >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > >> >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > >> >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. > >> >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the > >> >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified > >> >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without > >> >> >> killing animals; > >> >> > > >> >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand > >> >> > >> >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand > >> >> if only you knew the difference between per se and > >> >> per accidens. > >> > > >> >I understand the difference. > >> > >> It's clear from your response here that you do not. > >> > >> >BTW, both meat and vegetables > >> >can theoretically exist without killing animals. > >> > >> I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their > >> food from road kill or from animals that have died > >> from natural causes, but the meat being discussed > >> here is the type which is sourced from animals > >> killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals > >> are per se, while the deaths of animals associated > >> with crop production are per accidens. If you'd > >> understood these terms like you said you had, you > >> would not have made this error. > > > >It appears to me that you are operating a double > >standard here. You claim that the deaths associated > >with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds > >that we are talking about meat that has been sourced > >from animals deliberately killed for their meat but > >still claim that those associated with crop production > >are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been > >sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill > >animals. > > You're confusing "accident" with "per accidens", believing > that, just because the crops are intentionally sprayed with > chemicals to kill animals (non-accidentally), the deaths > cannot therefore be per accidens, and this is where you're > going wrong. Look further up this page where I initially > explained the terms "per se" and "per accidens". > > "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." > > Where farmed meat is concerned, the deaths of animals > is a property that is always necessary for that object's > existence; you cannot source farmed meat without killing > the animals. Pedant point: You can. Just wait for the animal to die of natural causes. > Those deaths are per se: a property that is > always absolutely necessary for THAT meat's existence. > > Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's) > are not necessary for that object's existence; you can > source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are > caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property > that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist. OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance. > >> >> >but > >> >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly > >> >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered > >> >> >without? > >> >> > >> >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? > >> > > >> >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is > >> >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) > >> > >> You need to support your claim, and my question > >> asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very > >> real possibility that the drugs found using animal > >> research might still have been found without it, or > >> that they may have been discovered even earlier. > >> The onus on you is to support your claim. > > > >I believe the onus is on you for two reasons: > > > >1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that > >drugs could exist without killing animals in medical > >research and I challenged you on it. > > Drugs can exist and be found without killing animals. I'm not disputing that. However the animal deaths resulting from medical knowledge that was acquired by lethal animal experiments and, by extension any drugs utilising that knowledge, are per-se unless a non-animal method that would have yielded the same results is known. > [Two examples of drugs developed without animal > research are penicillin and the smallpox vaccine. > > The smallpox vaccine was developed by a scientist > who noticed that everyone in a particular village had > contracted smallpox except one person: the milkmaid. > It appeared that the milkmaid had been exposed to > cowpox through her daily contact with cows, and her > body developed antigens against the cowpox and > those antigens were effective against the smallpox. > Cowpox is closely related to smallpox, but much > milder. The scientist began exposing healthy people > to cowpox (without testing his theory on animals) and > found that those people became immune to smallpox. > > Penicillin was discovered accidentally by a scientist > who noticed that germs would not grow on certain > areas of certain petri dishes in his lab. Upon testing > these areas, he found that those areas contained > penicillin. > > Just because a drug or treatment was developed using > animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been > developed *without* animal research.] True but neither does it mean that the drug could have been developed without animal research. > http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/vivisec.htm > > Those are just two examples where drugs can and do > exist without killing animals. Ancient drugs and remedies > found in rainforest areas are other examples where the > deaths of animals weren't necessary. So, the deaths > currently associated with drug production are not > necessary for the existence of drugs, and are therefore > per accidens. The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal research shows that any deaths associated with those particular drugs are per-accidens. It does not show that the deaths associated with modern drugs, developed using animal experiments, are per accidens. > >> >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" > >> >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, > >> >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now > >> >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in > >> >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy > >> >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". > >> >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? > >> >> > > >> >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that > >> >> >needed to be done. > >> >> > >> >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was > >> >> needed, and nor have you answered the question > >> >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions > >> >> of your own is a dodge. > >> > > >> >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done > >> >per accidens is not so important. > >> > >> It's crucial, because without that distinction you > >> cannot compare the moral status behind these > >> goods. As with everything about you, you have > >> no coherent principle or reasoning behind your > >> position. > > > >Although I have admitted I have no way to classify > >the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong" > > Exactly: because you haven't grasped the distinction > between per se and per accidens, even though you > thought you did. IMHO the distinction between per se and per accidens does not enable one to classify the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong", even when understood correctly. > > >I can still compare them in relative terms according > >to the actual consequences of their production. > > Then according to you, the moral status of farmed > meat is good if the consequences of its production > can be shown to be good. Conversely, the moral > status of veg must be bad if the consequences of its > production is bad. Correct. > You need to think that through again. Why? > >> >What matters is the consequences > >> > >> No. The consequences of an action cannot judge > >> whether that act was good or bad. An action can > >> only be judged on the principle involved behind it. > >> You simply don't know what you're talking about. > > > >In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks > >to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to > >appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such > >as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens > >but what practical purpose does that serve? > > Since when was it required that a philosophical > concept must have a practical purpose? Philosophical concepts do not necessarily need to serve a practical purpose but ethics is supposed to be a practial branch of philosophy, not merely a way of justifying one's dietary prejudices. > >> >> >If you consumed plantation sugar > >> >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for > >> >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, > >> >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar? > >> >> > >> >> Neither. > >> > > >> >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar > >> >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade > >> >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not > >> >responsible for supporting the meat industry. > >> > >> No, because the deaths associated with the meat > >> industry are per se while the deaths associated > >> with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't > >> grasped any of this at all. > > > >Again, if you wish to make a distinction between > >meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by > >the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems > >inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar > >obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained > >using forced labour. > > No, it isn't inconsistent at all. A valid moral distinction > can be made between scavenged and farmed meat. Agreed. > Scavenged meat can be sourced from animals that > haven't been killed by us in order to get it, while > farmed meat cannot exist without our first killing the > animal to get it. Get it? Yes. Buying meat from the butcher gives farmers a commercial incentive to keep killing animals. Scavenging meat does not. > Using sugar to make an analogy with meat is absurd, > since we don't kill sugar in the first place. I see nothing absurd in my analogy. The purchasing of sugar in the days of slavery gave plantation owners a commercial incentive to buy more slaves. > >> >In > >> >that case, what is the ethical objection to him eating > >> >the meat? > >> > >> Because the death of the animal was per se and > >> intentional rather than per accidens. > > > >See above. > > You're in a mess. Sort yourself out by trying to > retain some of what I've explained. I understand the disctinction between per se and per essence but until you can show that the ethics, you have built upon the distinction have a more noble purpose than justifying your dietary prejudices I shall continue to treat it as worthless. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Sep 2005 04:21:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 10 Sep 2005 10:23:05 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 7 Sep 2005 12:47:44 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 6 Sep 2005 07:01:11 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote: >> >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan >> >> >> >> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you >> >> >> >> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with >> >> >> >> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still >> >> >> >> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing >> >> >> >> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that >> >> >> >> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get >> >> >> >> you to where you want to be. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction >> >> >> >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something >> >> >> >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is >> >> >> >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence. >> >> >> >> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the >> >> >> >> deaths associated with medical research are not classified >> >> >> >> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without >> >> >> >> killing animals; >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand >> >> >> >> >> >> What I wrote above is crucial to the point in hand >> >> >> if only you knew the difference between per se and >> >> >> per accidens. >> >> > >> >> >I understand the difference. >> >> >> >> It's clear from your response here that you do not. >> >> >> >> >BTW, both meat and vegetables >> >> >can theoretically exist without killing animals. >> >> >> >> I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their >> >> food from road kill or from animals that have died >> >> from natural causes, but the meat being discussed >> >> here is the type which is sourced from animals >> >> killed for their meat. The deaths of these animals >> >> are per se, while the deaths of animals associated >> >> with crop production are per accidens. If you'd >> >> understood these terms like you said you had, you >> >> would not have made this error. >> > >> >It appears to me that you are operating a double >> >standard here. You claim that the deaths associated >> >with the meat industry are per-se on the grounds >> >that we are talking about meat that has been sourced >> >from animals deliberately killed for their meat but >> >still claim that those associated with crop production >> >are per-accidens, even if the vegetables have been >> >sprayed with chemicals *deliberately* designed to kill >> >animals. >> >> You're confusing "accident" with "per accidens", believing >> that, just because the crops are intentionally sprayed with >> chemicals to kill animals (non-accidentally), the deaths >> cannot therefore be per accidens, and this is where you're >> going wrong. Look further up this page where I initially >> explained the terms "per se" and "per accidens". No comment? And you say you aren't trying to waste my time, after my having to explain it again only for you to ignore again? >> "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction >> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something >> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is >> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." >> >> Where farmed meat is concerned, the deaths of animals >> is a property that is always necessary for that object's >> existence; you cannot source farmed meat without killing >> the animals. > >Pedant point: There's nothing pedant about it. >You can. Just wait for the animal to die of >natural causes. Exactly. >> Those deaths are per se: a property that is >> always absolutely necessary for THAT meat's existence. >> >> Where crops are concerned, the deaths of animals (CD's) >> are not necessary for that object's existence; you can >> source veg without killing animals. The deaths that are >> caused by crop producers are per accidens: a property >> that isn't necessary for the vegetables we eat to exist. > >OK. I understand the disctinction. I still dispute its significance. You don't understand the distinction, and therefore you cannot dispute it; you merely don't see it, that's all, but then that's your failing rather than mine. >> >> >> >but >> >> >> >how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly >> >> >> >as a result of animal research would have been discovered >> >> >> >without? >> >> >> >> >> >> Rather, how can you be so sure that they wouldn't? >> >> > >> >> >"Avoiding questions by asking questions of your own is >> >> >a dodge", or so I have been reliably informed:-) >> >> >> >> You need to support your claim, and my question >> >> asks for that support. You cannot exclude the very >> >> real possibility that the drugs found using animal >> >> research might still have been found without it, or >> >> that they may have been discovered even earlier. >> >> The onus on you is to support your claim. >> > >> >I believe the onus is on you for two reasons: >> > >> >1. I was not making any claim. You made the claim that >> >drugs could exist without killing animals in medical >> >research and I challenged you on it. >> >> Drugs can exist and be found without killing animals. > >I'm not disputing that. Then why did you challenge me to support the claim that "drugs could exist without killing animals in medical research" by writing, "You made the claim that drugs could exist without killing animals in medical research and I challenged you on it." You did dispute that they can, and now that I've given you two examples showing they can, you're now trying to claim that you're not disputing that they can by writing, "I'm not disputing that." You're just wasting our time, going round in circles contradicting yourself. >> [Two examples of drugs developed without animal >> research are penicillin and the smallpox vaccine. >> >> The smallpox vaccine was developed by a scientist >> who noticed that everyone in a particular village had >> contracted smallpox except one person: the milkmaid. >> It appeared that the milkmaid had been exposed to >> cowpox through her daily contact with cows, and her >> body developed antigens against the cowpox and >> those antigens were effective against the smallpox. >> Cowpox is closely related to smallpox, but much >> milder. The scientist began exposing healthy people >> to cowpox (without testing his theory on animals) and >> found that those people became immune to smallpox. >> >> Penicillin was discovered accidentally by a scientist >> who noticed that germs would not grow on certain >> areas of certain petri dishes in his lab. Upon testing >> these areas, he found that those areas contained >> penicillin. >> >> Just because a drug or treatment was developed using >> animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been >> developed *without* animal research.] > >True but neither does it mean that the drug could have >been developed without animal research. If course it does, you stupid idiot, and further down this page you even admit that they can by writing, "The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal research shows that any deaths associated with those particular drugs are per-accidens." What the **** is the matter with you, you imbecile? >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/vivisec.htm >> >> Those are just two examples where drugs can and do >> exist without killing animals. Ancient drugs and remedies >> found in rainforest areas are other examples where the >> deaths of animals weren't necessary. So, the deaths >> currently associated with drug production are not >> necessary for the existence of drugs, and are therefore >> per accidens. > >The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal >research shows that any deaths associated with those >particular drugs are per-accidens. No, it shows that the deaths associated with drug discovery and production are per accidens - period. >It does not show that >the deaths associated with modern drugs, developed using >animal experiments, are per accidens. Wrong. You've already conceded the fact that drugs can and are found without animal research, and are thus per accidens by writing, "The fact that drugs have been discovered without animal research shows that any deaths associated with those particular drugs are per-accidens." You're all over the place. >> >> >> >> the properties they carry are "per accidens" >> >> >> >> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods, >> >> >> >> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now >> >> >> >> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in >> >> >> >> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy >> >> >> >> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens". >> >> >> >> What would be the ethical choice between the two? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that >> >> >> >needed to be done. >> >> >> >> >> >> You haven't persuaded me that the harm done was >> >> >> needed, and nor have you answered the question >> >> >> put to you. Avoiding questions by asking questions >> >> >> of your own is a dodge. >> >> > >> >> >The distinction between harm done per se and harm done >> >> >per accidens is not so important. >> >> >> >> It's crucial, because without that distinction you >> >> cannot compare the moral status behind these >> >> goods. As with everything about you, you have >> >> no coherent principle or reasoning behind your >> >> position. >> > >> >Although I have admitted I have no way to classify >> >the moral status of goods as "right" or "wrong" >> >> Exactly: because you haven't grasped the distinction >> between per se and per accidens, even though you >> thought you did. > >IMHO the distinction between per se and per accidens does not >enable one to classify the moral status of goods as >"right" or "wrong", even when understood correctly. Being that you admittedly don't understand the terms or see their relevance, your opinion on them is irrelevant. >> >I can still compare them in relative terms according >> >to the actual consequences of their production. >> >> Then according to you, the moral status of farmed >> meat is good if the consequences of its production >> can be shown to be good. Conversely, the moral >> status of veg must be bad if the consequences of its >> production is bad. > >Correct. Then you have no argument against the meat eater for what he eats, because according to him the consequence of its production is good. And you have no defence against him either, because he can show you that the consequences of veg production is bad. As we can see, you have no guiding principle behind your diet, and you have no argument against the meat eater for his. You're simply wasting your time and theirs. >> >> >What matters is the consequences >> >> >> >> No. The consequences of an action cannot judge >> >> whether that act was good or bad. An action can >> >> only be judged on the principle involved behind it. >> >> You simply don't know what you're talking about. >> > >> >In my view a good system of ethics is one that seeks >> >to enhance the quality of life for all beings able to >> >appreciate it. You can formulate any prinicple such >> >as your distinction between per-se and per-accidens >> >but what practical purpose does that serve? >> >> Since when was it required that a philosophical >> concept must have a practical purpose? > >Philosophical concepts do not necessarily need to >serve a practical purpose Then why try to dismiss Aristotle's philosophical concept by asking what practical purpose it can serve if you're now saying that "Philosophical concepts do not necessarily need to serve a practical purpose", time-waster? >but ethics You don't understand ethics. >> >> >> >If you consumed plantation sugar >> >> >> >in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for >> >> >> >supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, >> >> >> >"in essence" nature of the sugar? >> >> >> >> >> >> Neither. >> >> > >> >> >So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar >> >> >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade >> >> >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not >> >> >responsible for supporting the meat industry. >> >> >> >> No, because the deaths associated with the meat >> >> industry are per se while the deaths associated >> >> with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't >> >> grasped any of this at all. >> > >> >Again, if you wish to make a distinction between >> >meat obtained by scavenging and meat obtained by >> >the deliberate killing of an animal then it seems >> >inconsistent to make no distinction between sugar >> >obtained using willing labour and sugar obtained >> >using forced labour. >> >> No, it isn't inconsistent at all. A valid moral distinction >> can be made between scavenged and farmed meat. > >Agreed. Thank you. >> Scavenged meat can be sourced from animals that >> haven't been killed by us in order to get it, while >> farmed meat cannot exist without our first killing the >> animal to get it. Get it? > >Yes. Buying meat from the butcher gives farmers a commercial >incentive to keep killing animals. Scavenging meat does not. Thank you. >> You're in a mess. Sort yourself out by trying to >> retain some of what I've explained. > >I understand the disctinction between per se and >per essence No, you still don't. >but until you can show that the ethics, >you have built upon the distinction have a more >noble purpose than justifying your dietary prejudices >I shall continue to treat it as worthless. Then your ignorance over these terms has made you arrogant about them as well. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|