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 15-09-2006, 10:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
roups.com...

I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument.


No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
aguments.


Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?


I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one I
know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.

The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is good/bad,
right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is ever
a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which produce
or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?
It's tempting, but does it hold up or is it self-serving and circular? One
of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
contexts. Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
evasion that fails to answer the accusation? What if we raise Yorkshire
Terriers we are criticized or charged for say, killing off pups that don't
meet show quality standards? Would it help our case to respond "they only
get to experience life because of me"? Clearly that response never answers
the accusation directly and should be avoided. The criticism must be
addressed head on, either by direct counter-argument or by denying it's
veracity. Introducing this extraneous "they only get to experience life
because of us" factor does nothing to answer it.




  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-09-2006, 05:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
groups.com...

I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument.

No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
aguments.


Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?


I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one I
know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.

The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is good/bad,
right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is ever
a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which produce
or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?


Of course.

It's tempting, but does it hold up


LOL! I mean: Of course.

or is it self-serving and circular?


That's a different issue. No matter how loud you sing or how you
dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
they are raised to be eaten.

One
of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
contexts.


No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
different.

Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
evasion that fails to answer the accusation?


It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
ONLY to be treated that way. Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food. So if you're going to
make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for. Using them as prostitutes
is abusive to the children. In contrast to that, I supporting giving
the animals LIVES OF POSITIVE VALUE. You are--as always--trying
to compare things which are not similar because that's ALL you can
do. You can't think of anything else that is like the situation of raising
animals for food, much as you obviously wish that you could.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-09-2006, 09:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
egroups.com...

I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument.

No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them
back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
aguments.

Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?


I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one
I
know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.

The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is
good/bad,
right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is
ever
a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which
produce
or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?


Of course.


I mean can we do it *legitimately*?

It's tempting, but does it hold up


LOL! I mean: Of course.


No it doesn't, an argument to that effect is included.

or is it self-serving and circular?


That's a different issue.


It is THE issue. If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
been seen as suspect and discarded.

No matter how loud you sing or how you
dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
they are raised to be eaten.


Nobody said they were "cheated out of longer lives" because they are raised
to be eaten, they are "cheated out of longer lives" because we kill them.
That's what we are defending, killing them.

One
of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
contexts.


No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
different.


It is legitimate and necessary to examine other contexts in which the same
kind of reasoning may be used.

Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
evasion that fails to answer the accusation?


It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
ONLY to be treated that way.
Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food.


As I have, therefore "giving them life" is an extraneous and circular
argument to add on after you already decided that IN ADVANCE that it's
right.

So if you're going to
make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for.


Slaves were deliberately raised in order to be worked 16 hours a day for no
pay and whipped or hung from a tree if they talked back. Did that make it
OK? No, the issue of the decision being made "IN ADVANCE" is irrelevant.

Using them as prostitutes
is abusive to the children. In contrast to that, I supporting giving
the animals LIVES OF POSITIVE VALUE.


It makes no difference what animal treatment you "support" in theory, what
matters is do your actual choices at the market support "positive" animal
lives or negative ones. If it is the former then we may argue that we are
being moral in our actions, but we can never argue that we are creating some
"net good" for the animal. (refer to the slavery analogy)

You are--as always--trying
to compare things which are not similar because that's ALL you can
do. You can't think of anything else that is like the situation of raising
animals for food, much as you obviously wish that you could.


See above. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not we intended to
do something in advance or if we believed from the start that is was right,
or if we make the decision at a later time. It's either right or not. The
issue of abusing animals once they are born only takes something that we may
have decided is right and turns into something wrong. The only possible
outcomes are that we are moral or immoral in this, we cannot be heros.
"Considering what they get out of it" is an indirect attempt to paint
yourself as a hero.


  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-09-2006, 07:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
legroups.com...

I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument.

No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them
back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
aguments.

Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?

I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one
I
know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.

The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is
good/bad,
right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is
ever
a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which
produce
or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?


Of course.


I mean can we do it *legitimately*?


Some of we can. Others of "we"--like YOU "aras"--can't do it at all.

It's tempting, but does it hold up


LOL! I mean: Of course.


No it doesn't, an argument to that effect is included.

or is it self-serving and circular?


That's a different issue.


It is THE issue. If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
been seen as suspect and discarded.


It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
way reduces the quality of life for animals. And the only time that
CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
lives, is when there's not enough of it.

No matter how loud you sing or how you
dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
they are raised to be eaten.


Nobody said they were "cheated out of longer lives" because they are raised
to be eaten, they are "cheated out of longer lives" because we kill them.
That's what we are defending, killing them.


Some of us are considering everything. Others of you pick and
choose what supports "ar", and only want people to consider that.
Duh.

One
of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
contexts.


No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
different.


It is legitimate and necessary to examine other contexts in which the same
kind of reasoning may be used.

Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
evasion that fails to answer the accusation?


It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
ONLY to be treated that way.
Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food.


As I have, therefore "giving them life" is an extraneous and circular
argument to add on after you already decided that IN ADVANCE that it's
right.

So if you're going to
make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for.


Slaves were deliberately raised in order to be worked 16 hours a day for no
pay and whipped or hung from a tree if they talked back. Did that make it
OK?


No. I wouldn't say it is okay for animals either.

No, the issue of the decision being made "IN ADVANCE" is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant in regards to those being enslaved, but you can't
understand how it is, can you?

  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-09-2006, 11:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument.

No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them
back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
aguments.

Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of
child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?

I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only
one
I
know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.

The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is
good/bad,
right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is
ever
a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which
produce
or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having
children,
breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong
to
kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that
"they
only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?

Of course.


I mean can we do it *legitimately*?


Some of we can.


None of us can, legitimately, you do it illegitimately..

Others of "we"--like YOU "aras"--can't do it at all.


Anyone *can*, nobody should.

It's tempting, but does it hold up

LOL! I mean: Of course.


No it doesn't, an argument to that effect is included.

or is it self-serving and circular?

That's a different issue.


It is THE issue. If an argument is self-serving and circular then it
should
been seen as suspect and discarded.


It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
way reduces the quality of life for animals.


It is instantly apparent that it has nothing to do with it.

And the only time that
CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
lives, is when there's not enough of it.


"Consideration" in this context has no bearing on the quality of their
lives. The only consideration that impacts the quality of their lives is,
*consideration of the quality of their lives*. "Considering what they get
out of it" doesn't help them at all, therefore declining to do it as all
sensible people do, is not selfish or "inconsiderate" in any way.

No matter how loud you sing or how you
dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
they are raised to be eaten.


Nobody said they were "cheated out of longer lives" because they are
raised
to be eaten, they are "cheated out of longer lives" because we kill them.
That's what we are defending, killing them.


Some of us are considering everything.


Some of those "considerations" are actually shabby sophistry.

Others of you pick and
choose what supports "ar", and only want people to consider that.
Duh.


Ethical people avoid "considerations" that are shabby sophistry.

One
of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in
other
contexts.

No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
different.


It is legitimate and necessary to examine other contexts in which the same
kind of reasoning may be used.

Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that
an
evasion that fails to answer the accusation?

It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
ONLY to be treated that way.
Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food.


As I have, therefore "giving them life" is an extraneous and circular
argument to add on after you already decided that IN ADVANCE that it's
right.

So if you're going to
make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for.


Slaves were deliberately raised in order to be worked 16 hours a day for
no
pay and whipped or hung from a tree if they talked back. Did that make it
OK?


No. I wouldn't say it is okay for animals either.


So it made absolutely no difference that the decison was made in advance,
thank you.

No, the issue of the decision being made "IN ADVANCE" is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant in regards to those being enslaved, but you can't
understand how it is, can you?


It is irrelevant to those being enslaved whether or not their masters
planned to enslave them or not. This is just a feeble attempt by you to
dismiss a valid analogy that highlights the kind of shabby sophistry you
desperately need someone to accept.




  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:50:49 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
..
A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.

LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
would they get there?

Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.

Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?

diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,

I bet! - you're a ready sucker,

LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
damn funny.

I've plenty of reason to believe that.

Like what?

I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.

I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.

I'm not giving it to you again.


You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.


Unlike you, I don't lie.


I wish you didn't lie.

You dis-believe without reason.

I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.

That has happened.

You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?

You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.


That's because of a number of people who have reported them,


In Texas? Show us.


In a different thread one guy from the pathetic Texas ngs did say
something about me you will probably like, and also that he's heard
frogs in Texas rice fields:
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Subject: OT question about frogs in rice fields...
From: The Chief Instigator

I can safely conclude that you're a pretentious little incompetent troll,
son...since I've heard frogs in the rice fields a time or two in the 41 years
I've lived in Texas.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I'd be interested in what he has to say if you go challenge him
on it.

plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
rice fields.


Areas that are allowed to dry and then harvested twice a year?

The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
two other "aras".


Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.


I'm not worried about whether there are hundreds of thousands,
tens of thousands, or just thousands...even a hundred or so would
be significant to me. But then why wouldn't one be significant to
an "ara"?

.. . .
__________________________________________________ _______
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction


--restore--

"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.

If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. That's an ecosystem gone.

--end restore--

Why did you snip that, [email protected]?


Usually what I snip is shit, like your feeble, pathetic attempts to
pretend there's reason to believe in the hollow Earth shit...eventually
you just have to accept the fact that the horse is dead, if in fact
there's any horse at all.

I think you need to address it.


The fact that you can imagine how a mechanical harvester could
create the effect *should* be enough to give you an idea of how a
mechanical harvester could create the effect. The fact that you
think it could only happen once just shows how much you can't
think yet, especially considering that diderot provided an explanation
about that very thing. Here it is again:

- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.

- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
been seen as suspect and discarded.


It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
way reduces the quality of life for animals.


It is instantly apparent that it has nothing to do with it.

And the only time that
CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
lives, is when there's not enough of it.


"Consideration" in this context has no bearing on the quality of their
lives.


Consideration for the animals' lives encourages decent AW, which
works against "ar", which is why you "aras" are opposed to it. Duh.
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 09:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
been seen as suspect and discarded.

It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
way reduces the quality of life for animals.


It is instantly apparent that it has nothing to do with it.

And the only time that
CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
lives, is when there's not enough of it.


"Consideration" in this context has no bearing on the quality of their
lives.


Consideration for the animals' lives encourages decent AW, which
works against "ar", which is why you "aras" are opposed to it. Duh.


Equivocation on the word "life".


  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2018, 11:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 9/9/2006 8:23 AM, pearl wrote:
[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
..
A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.

LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
would they get there?

Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.

Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?

diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,

I bet! - you're a ready sucker,

LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
damn funny.

I've plenty of reason to believe that.

Like what?

I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.

I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.

I'm not giving it to you again.


You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.


Unlike you, I don't lie.


"Regarding the Inner Earth Beings"

'lotus' - 4 Aug 2001
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....Q/lJmQxcnWGYsJ
Message-ID:


You were saying something about not lying?

chuckle


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
rice deaths vs. road kill, attn. "pearl" [email protected] Vegan 3 07-09-2006 05:44 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 03:45 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017