an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
chico chupacabra wrote:
> Derek wrote: > > >>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of > >>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a > >>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a > >>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune, > >>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of > >>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF. > > > > > > 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise. Not exactly a lush garden, is it? http://tinyurl.com/gav22 Looks as if a tornado must have blown the trailer to Kansas. Back when the trailer was still there, I'm sure the noise from that highway was very soothing. > > > > Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan > > Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9 > > > > And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their > > hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church > > of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2. > > > > [..] > > > It's not a hovel, it's a trailer. And whatever you may have done over at > Google, your message is still bouncing around usenet. |
an observation about "the side"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... >> OBSERVATIONS... > >"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >.. >Violence/rape by definition causes harm, where is the harm in ****ing a sheep? > >09 August 2006 19:56 GMT > >> Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members >than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others >on "the side." Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge >> others by the company they keep. > >"You, you stupid semi-literate dog-eating ****ing >cocksucker. > >See if you can explain, little dog-eating cocksucking >arrogant prickcheese, > >Your task, little ****ing dog-eater, > >Shut your ****ing ignorant yap > >****witted, ignorant, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers theorizing." > >Your buddy-pal ball, chumpo. Aren't you proud? You "aras" all agree with Goo's claims that: "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral consideration." - Goo "We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo "When considering your food choices ethically, assign ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to experience life" deserves no consideration when asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo " There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting to experience life" - Goo "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals, ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm animals." - Goo ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions." - Goo "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo |
an observation about "the side"
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:13:34 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>OBSERVATIONS... > >> > > > > >>>Good grief, Karen Winter! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to >> > > > > >>>do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would >> > > > > >>>have been the *respectful* thing to do. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>Since when has Karen been respectful of anyone or anything? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Since always. > >This is patently untrue, Lesley. Her insincerity rings in every post. And neither is she a particularly nice person: I remind you this is the same Karen Winter who threatened a couple summers ago to unleash some violent anarchist friends on another person who posts to these groups (and his family). She threatened that they were already watching him and his family, and that he was in danger. > >> > > > > No. Never. >> > > > >> > > > You don't even know the meaning of the word. >> > > >> > > Someone who would call other people >> > >> > You're not a person >> >> You cut slack for someone who jacks off a little, defenseless bird >> and you call me evil, loathsome, fascist, etc. Nice. > >This is the more important point: once again, "the side" has shown they'll circle the wagons to protect their own no matter how warped, depraved, insane, violent, nutty, or loony someone is or becomes. Even though Lesley has finally come around to the position that sex between humans and animals is aberrant and weird, she still embraces Karen as a comrade-in-arms because Karen, while thinking it's perfectly fine and normal to have sexual relations with animals, opposes eating them. In many instances involving "normal" people, this alone would be enough for someone to be ostracized among her peers; for "the side," though, it's a small bump down the queer path of life. > >The same "circling the wagons" exists with respect to Lesley and her crazy posts about inner earth beings and all the rest of the stuff that would, in circumstances involving NORMAL people, result in calls for immediate psychiatric treatment. Instead, others on "the side" see her as some kind of asset. > >One exception: Derek has demonstrated that he won't turn a blind eye to Karen's sexual depravity. Well he accepts and promotes Goo's dishonesty, so that puts him on the same bus. >On the other hand, he has waffled between endorsing Lesley as some kind of expert on nutrition when her qualifications (graduate of a foot-rub course in London) are quite lacking and once or twice calling her out for her wild claims about reflexology and curing her sister with it. Nevermind that her knowledge of nutrition is based on pseudoscience from crackpot "vegan" websites, too. The side was ultimately more important than tales of chemtrails and little people beneath Mount Shasta. > >Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others on "the side." We've also seen that they will promote veg*nism even when it results in more animal deaths than grass raised animal products. >Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge others by the company they keep. |
Where's everybody gone?
lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message . net... > > lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied: > > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied: > > > > > > > > >>>Back to Bohemian Grove and the satanic rituals conducted there, > > >>>you know - Skull & Bones, Bush, Hitler.. are you a member too? > > >> > > >>The stuff at Bohemian Grove isn't satanic (and has nothing to do with > > >>Hitler -- invoking Godwin). It's like a frat=house reunion, where people > > >>do silly things they would never do near prying eyes (juvenile stunts, > > >>not anything untoward). The "Cremation of Care" ritual is mock-pagan, > > >>not satanic, and is about leaving the dull cares of the world behind. I > > >>find all the conspiracy theories about it quite amusing, nevermind the > > >>fact that Alex has turned it into a cottage industry. > > > > > > > > > 'The German Brotherhood > > > > > > [snip evidence I can't address] > > > > There is no connection between any "German Brotherhood" > > <guffaw> and Yale's Skull and Bones. > > 'Rosenbaum discovered documents which detailed the origins of Bones back > to Germany. No, he didn't. [snip remaining shit-hemorrhage] |
an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:03:42 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > >>>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of >>>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a >>>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a >>>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune, >>>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of >>>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF. >> >> 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise. >> >> Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan >> Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9 >> >> And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their >> hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church >> of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2. >> >> [..] > >It's not a hovel, it's a trailer. And whatever you may have done over at >Google, your message is still bouncing around usenet. Rest assured knowing 'my message' is bouncing around in far greater and more powerful circles than Usenet, chico. She's a dangerous predator actively seeking positions where she can come into close, unsupervised contact with children, and I've already made my move to remove that threat. |
NEW IMPETUS TO CHUMPO'S CRASH
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL > > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do > > > > > that? > > > > > > Answer the question, > > > > And before you say "gravity" again, > > It's why things fall straight down, Lesley. Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7. We know that: 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.' http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened. |
NEW ADDITION TO LESLEY'S INSANITY
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote: > > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > > ... > > > pearl wrote: > > > > > > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL > > > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that? > > > > > > Gravity. It's the law. > > > http://tinyurl.com/fttvl > > > > I knew it. > > Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of > gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley. Apparently you're rejecting the law of STEEL, chumpo. |
NEW ADDITION TO chumpo'S INSANITY
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > > Gotta correct the Subject line.. Man. ... > It's your entire lack of substance and your infamiliarity with science > and engineering that needs correction, sweetheart, not your subject > lines. LOL!! Let's see you ENLIGHTEN us all then, Chumpo. |
NEW ADDITION TO chumpo'S INSANITY
"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > > "pearl" > wrote: > > > > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > pearl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL > > > > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that? > > > > > > > > Gravity. It's the law. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fttvl > > > > > > I knew it. > > > > Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of > > gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley. > > Apparently you're rejecting the law of STEEL, chumpo. It would be funny if t'weren't so tragic and sad. |
Where's everybody gone?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on Guess. |
an observation about "the side"
****wi David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober
cracker, lied: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:04 +0100, lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied: > > >"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > >> OBSERVATIONS... > > > >"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > >.. > >Violence/rape by definition causes harm, where is the harm in ****ing a sheep? > > > >09 August 2006 19:56 GMT > > > >> Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members > >than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others > >on "the side." Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge > >> others by the company they keep. > > > > > >Your buddy-pal Leif, chumpo. Aren't you proud? > > You "aras" all agree with Leif's claims that: The below are all true statements, ****wit. > > "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral > consideration." - Leif > > "We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Leif > > "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral > consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing > of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral > consideration, and gets it." - Leif > > ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of > their deaths" - Leif > > "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" > (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for > killing them." - Leif > > "When considering your food choices ethically, assign > ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to > eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Leif > > "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind > of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Leif > > "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to > experience life" deserves no consideration when asking > whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Leif > > "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing > of the animals erases all of it." - Leif > > "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Leif > > " There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting > to experience life" - Leif > > "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude > than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Leif > > "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first > place is the ethically superior choice." - Leif > > "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal > ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the > moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Leif > > "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the > ethically superior choice." - Leif > > "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Leif > > ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals, > ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would > mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's > an influence, whether you like it or not." - Leif > > "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". > "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any > quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm > animals." - Leif > > ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. > And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would > live in bad conditions." - Leif |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
>>You're the grown woman with a "dream" of one day getting five acres and a pickup truck but lacking the ambition and means to acquire any of it -- beyond hoping that you get "lucky" and win a lottery. > > A lottery would be necessary to do it For you, pot-smoking slacker. > Did I ever mention a pickup truck? Please supply the money needed to buy my own land and the pickup truck I'll need. -- Skanky Panhandler, 20 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/mx3gq That was one of three hits (and the easiest I could find). You kept going off on a tangent about moving away from Toronto and that you'd need a pickup. Things like that, especially coming from someone who takes the bus, tend to stick out. >>>Please prove all of these conclusively. >> >>Feel free to review the archives for threads in which your lack of ambition was fully discussed and established. > > You mean It was all very well established. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>How long has it been since you gave some guy booty so you could >>>>>>score some weed? >>>>> >>>>>Yesterday. Twice. >>>> >>>>Figures. >>> >>>Yeah, it figures >> >>Still, it's the most ambition you've shown in all your 46 years. Twice is double the effort (and cooze) you usually put out. > > I am not 46, Forty-four. Forty-five. You're getting pretty dang close to 46. And "the change," if you're not going through it now. |
Where's everybody gone?
Skanky wrote:
>>>>Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping your >>>>hand and cankles. TMI. >>> >>>I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again? >> >>Why are you so defensive about it? > > I'm not. Yes, you are. >>>You just don't like gays no matter what. >> >>Dogs don't. Neither do most other normal male animals. > > You know, many men who hate gays are afraid that if they look inside > themselves, What studies can you cite to support this wild claim? > they might find they are ***. I know for a fact I'm not. > Do you hate women No. You're not a psychologist. You're a 40-something layabout pothead whose claim to fame is beta-testing software that didn't make the cut. > you're not > attracted to, are do you just treat them neutrally? One of my training partners is a ******* whom I've known since I was a teenager. She's not a lipstick ******* at all. I don't find her attractive, never have. But we get along very well, which is why we've been friends for so long. I've never "hated" her, my ******* neighbors, my *** friends, or anyone else who didn't give me plenty reason to cause me to have contempt. Case in point. Go back to the very first few posts I made in response to your incessant blithering a couple years ago. I offered to let you correct your errors when you lashed out at me for no reason. You wouldn't correct your lies, and you wouldn't even apologize. You willfully chose enmity instead of amity. > Why can't you just treat *** men neutrally? Do you still beat your ____ (husband, child, pets, neighbors, parents, siblings, etc.)? > Why are you so scared of them? I'm not afraid of anyone, you stupid bitch. >>>You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open your >>>mind a bit? >> >>It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why it's not a good idea. > > Well See what I mean. |
Where's everybody gone?
|
NEW ADDITION TO LESLEY'S INSANITY
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL >>>>>>>into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that? >>>> >>>>Gravity. It's the law. >>>>http://tinyurl.com/fttvl >>> >>>I knew it. >> >>Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of >>gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley. > > Apparently About time you came around. |
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote:
>>While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on > > Guess. I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead subculture, leprechauns. |
a (correct) observation about "the side"
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:52:39 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote: > [..] > >>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of >>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a >>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a >>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune, >>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of >>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF. > > > 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise. > > Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan > Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9 > > And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their > hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church > of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2. > > [..] The post still shows up in Earthlink's news server. Looks like canceling it from one server doesn't automatically cancel it from others. How about that?! |
an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
pearl wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message ... > >>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their > > > We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek > - I'm talking about Karen. So are we. Karen abandoned her son when he was quite young, she said the U.S. "deserved" the 9/11 attacks, and she incites birds to masturbate on her hand. Yes, Karen has no conscience. |
an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
pearl wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message ... > >>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:12:55 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their >>> >>>Go to Google Groups and REMOVE that message immediately! >>> >>>We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek, >>>and no - I'm not talking about Karen. You're a dupe to believe >>>and side with these loathsome ANTI psychopaths. DDDD - >>>Discredit, Divide, Defeat, Destroy. You play into their hands. > > >>I have no option but to act against this potential menace to >>children who seeks out positions where she can come >>into close contact with them. > > > You could do what you've previously done, but that ain't on. > > I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing > personal details. Replies to those posts, and there already have been a few, preserve the content of the original. Furthermore, even though the original has been removed from Google's news server, the cancelation did not cancel it from other servers. The post is currently sitting on Earthlink's server glowing like...like...well, glowing like depleted uranium. Ha ha ha ha ha! Hey, you vicious smelly **** - weren't you in the process of publishing *my* address a while back? You were a little late with it, of course; the late Ray Slater already posted it in its entirety a couple of times. Get off your ****ing soapbox, you goddamned lying charlatan foot rubber. You'd sick mobsters on someone you didn't like. You filthy ****. |
an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
pearl wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message ... > >>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:55:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >> >>>I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing >>>personal details. >> >>Done. > > > Thank you VERY MUCH. I still see it: 825 Calle Mejia. It's not going to go away, lesley. |
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .net... > > >>>>Answer the questions > > >>It absolutely is necessary that the ****witted lying two-penny foot-rubbing whore of Cork believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is no ****ING WAY under the sun this stupid **** could believe in all the other irrational bullshit on the below list, and somehow *not* believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. > > > Treasonous mass murder supporting coward. The 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were the mass murderers, LIESley, and I do not support them. You do. |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
> pearl wrote: > >>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on >> >> >> Guess. > > > I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner > earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead > subculture, leprechauns. ....zero point fields... |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > >> pearl wrote: >> >>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on >>> >>> >>> >>> Guess. >> >> >> >> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner >> earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead >> subculture, leprechauns. > > > ...zero point fields... ....the "zapper"... |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > >> chico chupacabra wrote: >> >>> pearl wrote: >>> >>>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your >>>>> take on >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Guess. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. >>> Inner earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead >>> subculture, leprechauns. >> >> >> >> ...zero point fields... > > > ...the "zapper"... ....polar 'fountains'... |
an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:48:19 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>pearl wrote: > >> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:12:55 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >>> >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their >>>> >>>>Go to Google Groups and REMOVE that message immediately! >>>> >>>>We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek, >>>>and no - I'm not talking about Karen. You're a dupe to believe >>>>and side with these loathsome ANTI psychopaths. DDDD - >>>>Discredit, Divide, Defeat, Destroy. You play into their hands. >> >> >>>I have no option but to act against this potential menace to >>>children who seeks out positions where she can come >>>into close contact with them. >> >> >> You could do what you've previously done, but that ain't on. >> >> I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing >> personal details. > >Replies to those posts, and there already have been a >few, preserve the content of the original. >Furthermore, even though the original has been removed >from Google's news server, the cancelation did not >cancel it from other servers. The post is currently >sitting on Earthlink's server glowing >like...like...well, glowing like depleted uranium. > >Ha ha ha ha ha! > >Hey, you vicious smelly **** - weren't you in the >process of publishing *my* address a while back? "I have yours, jonathan ball, starting from now, every time you lie about, or post what you believe to be personal information - either mine or others, I am going to post a letter or number from your address and telephone number .." Pearl Feb 3 2006 http://tinyurl.com/m3pqn >You >were a little late with it, of course; the late Ray >Slater already posted it in its entirety a couple of times. > >Get off your ****ing soapbox, you goddamned lying >charlatan foot rubber. You'd sick mobsters on someone >you didn't like. You filthy ****. |
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On 8 Aug 2006 18:18:40 -0700, wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> [..] > >> >> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases > >> >> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right > >> >> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their > >> >> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the > >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these > >> >> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims > >> >> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure > >> >> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, > >> >> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, > >> >> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms > >> >> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack > >> >> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would > >> >> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves > >> >> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong." > >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a > >> >> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees > >> >> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, > >> >> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms > >> >> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply > >> >> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm > >> >> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You > >> >> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm > >> >> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful > >> >> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not > >> >> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> >> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the > >> >> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the > >> >> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of > >> >> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the > >> >> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the > >> >> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not > >> >> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an > >> >> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The > >> >> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs, > >> >> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and > >> >> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and > >> >> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs > >> >> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the > >> >> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked > >> >> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated > >> >> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until > >> >> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above > >> >> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear > >> >> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual > >> >> >> context and no other." > >> >> > > >> >> >That's not a claim. It's a question. > >> >> > >> >> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question? > >> > > >> >See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question. > >> > >> Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single > >> sentence; > >> > >> 1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week. > >> This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two > >> facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact > >> that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week. > >> > >> 2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment" > >> arises in a sexual context and no other." > >> Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two > >> facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual > >> content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the > >> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other." > >> > >> Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie? > > > >Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "What I'm not clear on > >is why you think the issue of 'respectful treatment' arises in a sexual > >context and no other." > > No, because that sentence still isn't a question, but rather another > statement containing two facts which you believe to be true; that > "I think the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context > and no other." and that you're not clear on why "I think the issue > of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other." > Uh-huh. And? > I've made it abundantly clear from the start that I don't believe the > issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other, > so when you insist that I do in this way, even after I've tried to > correct you, I haven't. I made a conjecture about your position, you denied it was correct, so I asked for further clarification. > I can only assume that you're trying to intentionally > misrepresent my position to then knock that flawed position down > and declare a defeat over my real position, and I'm not going to > allow you to do that. > > >I thought you were a normal speaker of English > > I am, and that's how I manage to thwart your cunning little efforts > at misrepresenting my clear position. > > >I'll try to be more careful in future. > > It would be in YOUR best interest if you did. > > >Apologize for accusing me of lying and stop doing it. > > How can I while you continue to misrepresent my position I'm not. I'm asking you what it is. > and > then claim that your misrepresentation was but a question in > regards to it rather than a fact about it after I caught you out? |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote: > wrote: > > > chico chupacabra wrote: > > > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>chico chupacabra wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative > >>>>Anachronisms commune, wrote: > >>>> > >>>><...> > >>>> > >>>>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality. > >>>>> > >>>>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying. > >>>>> > >>>>>*Intentionally* is the key word. > >>>> > >>>>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written > >>>>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's > >>>>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then > >>>>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve > >>>>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business > >>>>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive > >>>>if someone eats an animal. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>He knows you condemn it; > >>>> > >>>>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive. > >>>>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered > >>>>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal. > >>>> > >>>><...> > >>>> > >>>>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, > >>>> > >>>>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote > >>>>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat, > >>>> > >>>>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet. > >>>> > > > > > > Her sexual activities are none of your business, > > Then tell her to keep it all in her closet. She's been disgustingly > candid about her sexual preferences and practices, everything from S&M > to NAMBLA to bestiality. And now we know she's engaged in the latter > with a poor cockatiel. > > > you disgusting homophobe. > > Nothing I wrote was "homophobic." That's your pathetic PC term which > ignores its core meaing, "fear of oneself," to impugn others with whom, > you disagree because you're either unwilling or unable to discuss the > merits of the arguments before you. > Arguments? Don't make me laugh. Your cheap shot at Glorfindel was an argument? Get serious. > >>>>>even roadkill. > >>>> > >>>>Even? *Especially* roadkill. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>But I would not want > >>>>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill > >>>> > >>>>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that > >>>>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia, > >>>>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's > >>>>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal? > >>> > >>> > >>>Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the > >>>morally relevant difference is. > >> > >>I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally > >>acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it. > >>Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts. > > > > Not if that's going to be your level of courtesy. > > Here's my level of courtesy to you, you prating windbag: **** yourself > with a broken bottle. > > > As I say, > > I know what you say, "I cannot answer ____ [fill in the blank with Mr > Erikson, Mr Dutch, Mr Nash, et al] so I'll demand civility instead." ****. > > > I really > > cannot comprehend how you could fail to grasp what her answer would be. > > I want to know why she finds it morally acceptable to jack off a > cockatiel -- repeatedly, no doubt -- but offensive to eat a small bite > of a vegetable dish that contains a tiny piece of bacon for flavoring. > > > I will explain it to you if you're prepared to be civil. > > Here's all the civility you deserve, prat: > *extending middle finger and waving it* > > Answer the question and stop being such a drama queen. |
Where's everybody gone?
Derek wrote: > On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700, wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >> > >> >Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you, > >> >and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your > >> >views. > >> > >> I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my > >> position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of > >> that all away. > > > >You have shown no such thing > > Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen > tried to do in this thread before you. > > <restore> > >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other. > >> >> > > >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. > >> >> > > >> >> >True > >> >> > >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful > >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? > >> > > >> >I didn't imply that. > >> > >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not > >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual > >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of > >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you > >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why. > > Well, liar? > I've explained to you what I meant countless times. Your whining is totally pathetic. Stop accusing me of lying and misrepresenting your position and get on with clarifying what your position is. |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > wrote: > >> > >>>Leif Erikson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Rupert wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>[..] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >>>>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises > >>>>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>True > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful > >>>>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I didn't imply that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not > >>>>>>clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual > >>>>>>context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of > >>>>>>"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you > >>>>>>declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>It was my attempt at interpreting your position. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position. > >>>>> > >>>>>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your > >>>>>position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me. > >>>> > >>>>Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him. > >>> > >>> > >>>Liar and coward. > >> > >>No. > >> > >> > >> > >>>I have never ordered you not to talk to me, > >> > >>Liar. > >> > >> "stop talking to me" > >> Rupert, psychotic rainman > >> http://tinyurl.com/jgtbz > > > > > > Yes, well, we'll let that link speak for itself, shall we? > > Yes, well, rupie, that link establishes that you > ordered me to stop talking to you, and that you are a > liar for having said you never told me that. > No, that's complete fantasy on your part. > You're a bossy little bitch, rupie, but no one really > considers you the boss. Go **** yourself, you sick > little dweeb. |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote: > rupertmccallum, prating windbag, wrote: > > > chico chupacabra wrote: > > > >>Rupert wrote: > >> > >> > >>>chico chupacabra wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Rupert wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>chico chupacabra wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic" > >>>>>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>><snip> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think > >>>>>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an > >>>>>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does > >>>>>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and > >>>>>>>reasoned. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't? > >>>>> > >>>>>Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to > >>>>>the debate? I must have missed it. > >>>> > >>>>You did, dumbass. > >>> > >>>Point me to it then. > >> > >>Find it yourself. > >> > >> > >>>And don't insult me, > >> > >>Why not? > > > > If you want to be childish and pathetic, go ahead. > > You have a big headstart with your childish, "Apologize now or I won't > reply anymore," followed by 20+ more replies making your childish demands. > It's not childish. If people want to publicly wallow in their own feces that's their business. I reserve the right to say what I think about it. > >>>you obnoxious asshole. > >> > >>Silly ****. > >> > >> > >>>Having > >>>missed a post (if that's what I've done) is not evidence of stupidity. > >> > >>Debatable, especially since Mr Erikson, whom I thought you were supposed > >>to be ignoring, is your better. > > > > That is absolutely hysterical. > > Hysterical? Not sure about that, because in a way it's sad that you're > acting like a small child with your "apologize now" tantrums. > It's not a tantrum. It's a civil request for someone to behave with minimal decency. > > Only someone on the same level as Mr. > > Erikson, such as yourself, could think that. Your opinion, like all > > your contributions to this thread, is absolutely worthless. > > Yet you find the time to make the same inane demands of me that you've > made to others. Why is it not beneath you to respond to those whose > opinions you neither appreciate nor respect? > For the most part it is. I'll respond whenever I feel like responding. > That, Rupie, tells us an awful lot about you. What does it tell *you*? You are a deeply sad, pathetic individual. You are unable to participate in a civilized conversation and you can't make a decent argument to save your life. You and Leif Erikson degrade yourselves to about the lowest level it is possible for a human being to get to by your conduct on this newsgroup. I find your comments about me utterly laughable. |
Where's everybody gone?
Dutch wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > [..] > > >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral > >> philosophy > >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others > >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. > > > > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to > > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when > > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I > > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights > > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. > > You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled quagmire > of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the > equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. > > "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which > innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with > respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." > > --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving a > person of their life. > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? |
Where's everybody gone?
rupturedmcscrotum is a @ yahoo wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > >>rupertmccallum, prating windbag, wrote: >> >> >>>chico chupacabra wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Rupert wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>chico chupacabra wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Rupert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>chico chupacabra wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic" >>>>>>>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think >>>>>>>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an >>>>>>>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does >>>>>>>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and >>>>>>>>>reasoned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to >>>>>>>the debate? I must have missed it. >>>>>> >>>>>>You did, dumbass. >>>>> >>>>>Point me to it then. >>>> >>>>Find it yourself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>And don't insult me, >>>> >>>>Why not? >>> >>>If you want to be childish and pathetic, go ahead. >> >>You have a big headstart with your childish, "Apologize now or I won't >>reply anymore," followed by 20+ more replies making your childish demands. > > It's not childish. Yes, it is. Most small children have more dignity than you. >>>>>you obnoxious asshole. >>>> >>>>Silly ****. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Having >>>>>missed a post (if that's what I've done) is not evidence of stupidity. >>>> >>>>Debatable, especially since Mr Erikson, whom I thought you were supposed >>>>to be ignoring, is your better. >>> >>>That is absolutely hysterical. >> >>Hysterical? Not sure about that, because in a way it's sad that you're >>acting like a small child with your "apologize now" tantrums. > > It's not a tantrum. It is, and the aforementioned majority of small children would probably take great offense that I've compared you to them. > It's a civil request Stop being a such a whiny little dick. >>>Only someone on the same level as Mr. >>>Erikson, such as yourself, could think that. Your opinion, like all >>>your contributions to this thread, is absolutely worthless. >> >>Yet you find the time to make the same inane demands of me that you've >>made to others. Why is it not beneath you to respond to those whose >>opinions you neither appreciate nor respect? > > For the most part it is No, it isn't at all. >>That, Rupie, tells us an awful lot about you. What does it tell *you*? > > You I asked what it tells you about yourself, dickhead. Now try again. |
Where's everybody gone?
rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > >>rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote: >> >> >>>chico chupacabra wrote: >>> >>> >>>>rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>chico chupacabra wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative >>>>>>Anachronisms commune, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><...> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>*Intentionally* is the key word. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written >>>>>>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's >>>>>>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then >>>>>>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve >>>>>>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business >>>>>>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive >>>>>>if someone eats an animal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>He knows you condemn it; >>>>>> >>>>>>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive. >>>>>>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered >>>>>>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal. >>>>>> >>>>>><...> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years, >>>>>> >>>>>>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote >>>>>>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat, >>>>>> >>>>>>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet. >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>Her sexual activities are none of your business, >> >>Then tell her to keep it all in her closet. She's been disgustingly >>candid about her sexual preferences and practices, everything from S&M >>to NAMBLA to bestiality. And now we know she's engaged in the latter >>with a poor cockatiel. >> >> >>>you disgusting homophobe. >> >>Nothing I wrote was "homophobic." That's your pathetic PC term which >>ignores its core meaing, "fear of oneself," to impugn others with whom, >>you disagree because you're either unwilling or unable to discuss the >>merits of the arguments before you. > > Arguments? Yes, those well-supported points put before you by people like Mr Erikson, Mr Dutch, and Mr Nash, and to which you keep flailing your arms in an act of childish defiance and throwing tantrums, demanding others conform to your childish demands to apologize or give you some sort of respect you haven't earned. BTW, I apologize to any small child who happens to read this and takes offense that I've compared YOU to SMALL CHILDREN. It's really unfair to them. > Don't make me laugh. I don't exactly get the impression humor is your strong suit anyway. > Your cheap shot at Karen Winter It wasn't a cheap shot, it was the truth. >>>>>>>even roadkill. >>>>>> >>>>>>Even? *Especially* roadkill. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>But I would not want >>>>>>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill >>>>>> >>>>>>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that >>>>>>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia, >>>>>>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's >>>>>>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the >>>>>morally relevant difference is. >>>> >>>>I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally >>>>acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it. >>>>Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts. >>> >>>Not if that's going to be your level of courtesy. >> >>Here's my level of courtesy to you, you prating windbag: **** yourself >>with a broken bottle. >> >> >>>As I say, >> >>I know what you say, "I cannot answer ____ [fill in the blank with Mr >>Erikson, Mr Dutch, Mr Nash, et al] so I'll demand civility instead." ****. >> >> >>>I really >>>cannot comprehend how you could fail to grasp what her answer would be. >> >>I want to know why she finds it morally acceptable to jack off a >>cockatiel -- repeatedly, no doubt -- but offensive to eat a small bite >>of a vegetable dish that contains a tiny piece of bacon for flavoring. >> >> >>>I will explain it to you if you're prepared to be civil. >> >>Here's all the civility you deserve, prat: >>*extending middle finger and waving it* >> >>Answer the question and stop being such a drama queen. Welllllllllllllllll??? |
Where's everybody gone?
rupturedmcscrotumis a @yahoo.com wrote:
> Derek wrote: > >>On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700, wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you, >>>>>and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your >>>>>views. >>>> >>>>I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my >>>>position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of >>>>that all away. >>> >>>You have shown no such thing >> >>Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen >>tried to do in this thread before you. >> >> <restore> >> >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >True >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful >> >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >> >> > >> >> >I didn't imply that. >> >> >> >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not >> >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual >> >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of >> >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you >> >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why. >> >> Well, liar? >> > > > I've explained to you what I meant countless times. Liar. The only thing "countless" here is your rate of dodging questions. > Your whining is totally pathetic. Derek isn't whining, dumb ass, you are. > Stop accusing me of lying He will when you stop lying, Rupture. |
Where's everybody gone?
manchild rupturedscrotum wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > >>"Rupert" > wrote >> >>>Dutch wrote: >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral >>>>philosophy >>>>that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others >>>>without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit. >>> >>>It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to >>>be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when >>>trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I >>>brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights >>>violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case. >> >>You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled quagmire >>of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the >>equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example. >> >>"The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which >>innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with >>respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong." >> >>--> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving a >>person of their life. > > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality? No, ****, he's just stated that depriving someone of life without just cause -- which usually means self-defense, capital punishment where due process has been observed, etc. -- makes it wrong. |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >>> chico chupacabra wrote: >>> >>>> pearl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your >>>>>> take on >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guess. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. >>>> Inner earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead >>>> subculture, leprechauns. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ...zero point fields... >> >> >> >> ...the "zapper"... > > > ...polar 'fountains'... ....alien abduction and UFOs... |
Where's everybody gone?
On 11 Aug 2006 03:36:43 -0700, wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 8 Aug 2006 18:18:40 -0700, wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700, wrote: >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their >> >> >> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these >> >> >> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims >> >> >> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure >> >> >> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms >> >> >> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees >> >> >> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms >> >> >> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply >> >> >> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm >> >> >> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You >> >> >> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm >> >> >> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful >> >> >> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not >> >> >> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the >> >> >> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the >> >> >> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of >> >> >> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the >> >> >> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the >> >> >> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not >> >> >> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an >> >> >> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The >> >> >> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs, >> >> >> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and >> >> >> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and >> >> >> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs >> >> >> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the >> >> >> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked >> >> >> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated >> >> >> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until >> >> >> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations"). >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above >> >> >> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear >> >> >> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual >> >> >> >> context and no other." >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That's not a claim. It's a question. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question? >> >> > >> >> >See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question. >> >> >> >> Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single >> >> sentence; >> >> >> >> 1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week. >> >> This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two >> >> facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact >> >> that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week. >> >> >> >> 2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment" >> >> arises in a sexual context and no other." >> >> Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two >> >> facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual >> >> content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the >> >> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other." >> >> >> >> Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie? >> > >> >Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "What I'm not clear on >> >is why you think the issue of 'respectful treatment' arises in a sexual >> >context and no other." >> >> No, because that sentence still isn't a question, but rather another >> statement containing two facts which you believe to be true; that >> "I think the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context >> and no other." and that you're not clear on why "I think the issue >> of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other." > >Uh-huh. And? And so it shows that you're a liar trying to build a strawman. Your sentence wasn't a question like you've claimed, and neither was your effort to rephrase it. >> I've made it abundantly clear from the start that I don't believe the >> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other, >> so when you insist that I do in this way, even after I've tried to >> correct you, > >I haven't. I made a conjecture about your position A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture So, why did you lie by pretending your statement was a question after I thwarted your efforts to build a strawman? >> I can only assume that you're trying to intentionally >> misrepresent my position to then knock that flawed position down >> and declare a defeat over my real position, and I'm not going to >> allow you to do that. >> >> >I thought you were a normal speaker of English >> >> I am, and that's how I manage to thwart your cunning little efforts >> at misrepresenting my clear position. Did you get that, liar? >> >I'll try to be more careful in future. >> >> It would be in YOUR best interest if you did. Did you get that, liar? >> >Apologize for accusing me of lying and stop doing it. >> >> How can I while you continue to misrepresent my position > >I'm not. I've shown that you are, and I'm not going to allow you to get away with it. >I'm asking you what it is. No, you're telling me what it is, even though I've shown that you've lied and tried to misrepresent my position at every turn. >> and >> then claim that your misrepresentation was but a question in >> regards to it rather than a fact about it after I caught you out? Well, liar? Just whom do you think you're trying to fool? |
Where's everybody gone?
On 11 Aug 2006 03:40:40 -0700, wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700, wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >> >> >> >> >Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you, >> >> >and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your >> >> >views. >> >> >> >> I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my >> >> position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of >> >> that all away. >> > >> >You have shown no such thing >> >> Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen >> tried to do in this thread before you. >> >> <restore> >> >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >True >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful >> >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."? >> >> > >> >> >I didn't imply that. >> >> >> >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not >> >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual >> >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of >> >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you >> >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why. >> >> Well, liar? > >I've explained to you what I meant countless times. No, rather, you've lied countless times and got caught out. >Stop accusing me of lying and misrepresenting your >position I've shown that you are a liar trying to misrepresent my position, and I will continue to do so. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter