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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 07:15 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"William" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
ink.net...
Billy Bligh wrote:

....
My faculties are in peek condition.

Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are
stupid-by-choice.

Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well.


.


These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak aroused
in Leif a state of pique. :-)


He just likes to pick on people. ( ouch .

She married a skinhead.


He married a vegan.

She married a skinhead.


I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while.

You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him.

If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that
because Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.


That's the truth of it.


I would say so.


They don't appear to understand that humans are (usually) multi-faceted..

In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
being one herself.

You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of
actually being one.


Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything
else. !

My bad. Sorry.


O h no ... *you* have nothing to apologise for. Just telling it as it really was.

She was a skinhead-wannabe herself.


No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe.

Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers.


They often do.

When did you last?

Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan about
two years ago.







  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 07:18 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"William" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message
...
Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead:

He was a lying criminal
Then how can you believe him

cut

I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information
come from lying criminals.

What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture?

The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge.

He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me.

Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent
he went to.


Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to him-
he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face after that.

He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup.


And I supposedly achieved this by shaving my head?? Golly .. skins would be
right silly push overs. Not to mention that it took him over a year here to realise
that I'm a 'love and rainbows hippy' with lots of little fluffy critters..? Pulease.


..



  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 07:25 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 86
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter lied:
Leif Erikson wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:


Pearl wrote:

bestiality


snip


Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS)
is repeatedly
paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the
response.
Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to
coerce behavior
children and animals would normally not engage.


Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.


How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
around seeking interspecies copulation?


snip

It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm
and rational manner; shall we try?


Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to,
[snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know]



Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


Prove it.


I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
so.


Prove that.


snip


I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
se_.


This, I think, is true.


It's bullshit.


Why?


Because animals don't have "personhood", Karen.


Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
to your implying that she defended it).


snip


She was suggesting one's position on such
conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).


*IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
criterion.


snip


To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.


I agree


But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
lesley-the-foot-rubbing-whore are strongly supportive of it.


No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
animal or to the human involved, or to both.


But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.
You don't believe in those, Karen - you're too post-modern and hip for
it, aren't you?

Lesley, in any case, endorses it:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

That is your position as well.

  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 07:40 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message oups.com...
pearl wrote:
"William" wrote in message ...


If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because
Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.


That's the truth of it.


Bullshit. You adopted the outward appearance, and you talked the talk,
even if you didn't fully walk the walk. For all intents and purposes,
you *were* a skinhead during the time you were married to that violent
felon.


Bullshit. I did not. I wouldn't even know where to start.

In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
being one herself.

You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually
being one.


Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else.


That's a lie, you dirty foot-rubbing Chelsea.


No. You are the dirty liar, ball. Everyone knows it too.

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of
their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.




  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 08:05 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 42
Default Where's everybody gone?


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
ink.net...
Billy Bligh wrote:

...
My faculties are in peek condition.

Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are
stupid-by-choice.

Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well.

.


These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak
aroused
in Leif a state of pique. :-)


He just likes to pick on people. ouch .

Yeah - ouch. That was crap ;-)

She married a skinhead.


He married a vegan.

She married a skinhead.


I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while.

You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him.

If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that
because Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.

That's the truth of it.


I would say so.


They don't appear to understand that humans are (usually) multi-faceted..


They pretend to forget when it suits them.

In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance
of
being one herself.

You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of
actually being one.

Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything
else. !

My bad. Sorry.


O h no ... *you* have nothing to apologise for. Just telling it as it really was.

Thanks.

She was a skinhead-wannabe herself.


No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe.

Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers.


They often do.

When did you last?

Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan
about
two years ago.









--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 08:17 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 42
Default Where's everybody gone?


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
...

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message
...
Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead:

He was a lying criminal
Then how can you believe him

cut

I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information
come from lying criminals.

What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture?

The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge.

He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto
me.

Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the
extent
he went to.

Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to
him-
he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face
after that.

He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup.


And I supposedly achieved this by shaving my head?? Golly .. skins would be
right silly push overs. Not to mention that it took him over a year here to
realise
that I'm a 'love and rainbows hippy' with lots of little fluffy critters..?
Pulease.

LOL.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 09:35 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 86
Default Where's everybody gone?

pearl wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message oups.com...
pearl wrote:
"William" wrote in message ...


If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because
Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself.

That's the truth of it.


Bullshit. You adopted the outward appearance, and you talked the talk,
even if you didn't fully walk the walk. For all intents and purposes,
you *were* a skinhead during the time you were married to that violent
felon.


Bullshit. I did not.


Bullshit. You did, too.

I wouldn't even know where to start.


You started with shaving your head. You continued by marrying a
violent skinhead felon.


In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of
being one herself.

You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually
being one.

Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else.


That's a lie, you dirty foot-rubbing Chelsea.


No.


Yes, you lying slut.


And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


From an AR point of view.


From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.


  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2006, 10:19 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Default Where's everybody gone?

Billy Blight wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
ups.com...
William wrote:
cut

He was a lying criminal

Then how can you believe him,


He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least
pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her.

Based on his evidence, and let's not forget that you called him a lying criminal.


He spoke the truth about lesley shaving her head and giving the
appearance of being a skinhead. He had nothing to gain by lying about
it.

  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:51 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.


I have.

Prove it.


I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
so.


Prove that.


If you'd studied the relevant disciplines in science,
you'd know it is so.

snip

I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
se_.


This, I think, is true.


It's bullshit.


Why?


Because animals don't have "personhood"


That is your opinion, but others disagree.

However, that does not address the relevant
question he how can one claim a practice
is wrong *because it involves conditioning*
while not condemning conditioning? That
makes no logical sense. Conditioning
is either wrong in itself, or not. There
is no other alternative.

You may condemn a practice for some other
reason, which appears to be the case here,
but you apparently do not condemn conditioning
in itself. Therefore, you cannot condemn
a practice *simply* because it involves conditioning.
I can, and do.

snip

She was suggesting one's position on such
conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).


*IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
criterion.


snip

To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.


I agree


But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
Pearl are strongly supportive of it.


No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
animal or to the human involved, or to both.


But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.


If it causes harm, unless that harm is for the greater benefit
of the individual harmed (such as the pain of a medical
procedure to prevent the greater harm of the disease/injury ),
I believe it is immoral. I certainly believe there are things
which are, indeed, immoral.

snip

Lesley, in any case, endorses it:


*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


That is your position as well.


Well, yes, it is. I don't think I have a right to
prevent people by force from doing things which cause
no harm to another, human or animal. There may be
things which religious groups regard as sin, but in
a non-theocratic state, religious groups only have the
authority to enforce their views on their own members.
There may be things I dislike or regard as wrong, but
unless they cause *harm* -- harm which can be objectively
observed -- I do not have the right to enforce my
opinion on others against their will.




  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:54 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Where's everybody gone?

Leif Erikson wrote:
pearl wrote:


snip
And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7


From an AR point of view.


From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.


That is a logical fallacy. She does not endorse it,
and has said so.



  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:57 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21
Default Where's everybody gone?


Leif Erikson wrote:
Billy Blight wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
ups.com...
William wrote:
cut

He was a lying criminal

Then how can you believe him,

He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least
pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her.

Based on his evidence, and let's not forget that you called him a lying criminal.


He spoke the truth about lesley shaving her head and giving the
appearance of being a skinhead. He had nothing to gain by lying about
it.



How do you know he spoke the truth Goo?

  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:30 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter blabbered:

Leif Erikson wrote:

chico chupacabra wrote:



Pearl wrote:

bestiality



snip



Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS)
is repeatedly
paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively
elicits an
unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the
response.
Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to
coerce behavior
children and animals would normally not engage.



Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.



How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
around seeking interspecies copulation?



snip

It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm
and rational manner; shall we try?



Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to,
[snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know]




Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?


Because you aren't, Karen. You studied history at
universtiy, and you dabbled in some ****ing bullshit
called "creative anachronism". You don't know your
pimply doughy ass from your florid face when it comes
to biology and zoology
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:34 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Karen Winter Blabbered:

Leif Erikson wrote:

KAREN WINTER blabbered:


Karen, my post did *not* say, "Glorfindel wrote". *MY*
post said, "Karen Winter blabbered". Leave it alone, ****.



Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?



Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.



I have.


You have not, Karen. You studied history, and you
dabbled in some worthless navel-gazing bullshit called
"creative anachronism". You have not studied biology
and zoology - not ever. Stop lying.



Prove it.


I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific
community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is
so.



Prove that.



If you'd studied the relevant disciplines in science,


You haven't.


I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
se_.



This, I think, is true.



It's bullshit.



Why?



Because animals don't have "personhood"



That is your opinion,


It is fact.


She was suggesting one's position on such
conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.).



*IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject
conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics,
and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole
criterion.



snip


To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an
animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn
it.



I agree



But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and
Pearl are strongly supportive of it.



No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the
animal or to the human involved, or to both.



But apparently *not* on the ground that it is immoral and a perversion.



If it causes harm, unless that harm is for the greater benefit
of the individual harmed (such as the pain of a medical
procedure to prevent the greater harm of the disease/injury ),
I believe it is immoral.


Oh, switching from deontology to utilitarianism, are
you? You incompetent dilettante.



Lesley, in any case, endorses it:



*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7



That is your position as well.



Well, yes, it is.


Right: an endorsement of bestiality. This is what was
claimed all along, for both you and the foot rubbing
whore of Cork, lesley.
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:35 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Where's everybody gone?

Glorfindel wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

pearl wrote:



snip

And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:

*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7



From an AR point of view.



From a sex-with-animals point of view. You endorse it.



That is a logical fallacy.


No.


She does not endorse it,


She endorses it. Her quote proves it.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2006, 11:45 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Where's everybody gone?

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...

Glorfindel wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:



Why do you claim I am not qualified to know?



Because you never studied this the relevant disciplines in science.



I have.


You have not, Karen.


What makes you think that you are qualified to know that?

Where did you learn that "no animal anticipates", as you have
repeatedly claimed? What are your qualifications in the field?

Where did you study various aspects of rape, and anatomy?

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...

Rubystars wrote:

..
not only because rape is violence,


Ipse dixit, and petitio principii.

but because it could cause all manner of problems in those young children.


It *could*, but it wouldn't necessarily, and in fact
usually wouldn't. Your standard crumbles further...

Damage to the vagina or anus, STDs, etc. but your claim that penetration of
children is not violent,


It is not _intrinsically_ violent. It cannot be
defined as violent _per se_.

is demonstrably wrong, due to soreness and bleeding
from both the anus and the vagina.


No. Those might not happen, and as I said, almost
assuredly won't happen with girls 13 or older.

Keep in mind that grown ups are much
larger than children.


They are not always much larger than early adolescents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you defending the rape of children, jonathan ball?






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017