"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 2:33 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ps.com...



On Jul 6, 12:16 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 5, 1:40 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:

snip

====================
How many did you save? Remember, the first claim was yours, that
being
vegan saved animals.

Well, that's a good question. I don't know exactly. Probably about
20
per year if you count chickens. I haven't got any particular
interest
in proving to you that I'm doing a good job of saving animals. I'm
more interested in just getting on with the job. If you're going to
try and argue that I'm not doing that good a job, it's your job to
make your case.
=======================

That's my point. You are holding yourself back because you follow
only
your
simple rule for your simple mind. Say the chickens are 5 pounds, and
about
1000
calories per pound. 100,000 calories. What did you eat in place of
that?
Rice?
potatoes? Bananas? How many animals died for the production of
those
replacements?
10? 20? 1000? Do you care? Your actions say no.

Yes, I do care. I think I am making every reasonable effort under the
circumstances to reduce my impact on animals. I think that it would be
very difficult to get reliable information about what choices would
reduce my impact further, and I think the gains would be trivial.

But in any case, I really don't care about your opinion. I'm not
interested in proving to you that I care about animals, or in meeting
the standards that you for some reason think I should meet, even
though you yourself don't meet them. Your contempt is really of no
interest to me. I think it's absurd. We're here to discuss animal
ethics, not your opinion of me.

Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar
panels.

=======================
We've been through this bs before, killer. Skipping the fact that
I
don't
believe you,

Well, that's pitiful desperation. If you're going to criticize
someone's lifestyle when you don't know the facts, you can't just
say
"I don't believe you" when they tell you the facts. If you're going
to
contest what I say you've got to give some reason for thinking that
you've got access to a more reliable source than me.

since you're already a proven liar,

Absolute nonsense. I've never told a single lie here and you know
it.

your use of the internet, and the
demands you are part of go
far beyond the electric your computer uses.

Yes, I discussed this argument of yours. I don't buy it. No
advertiser
is going to give Google more money unless I actually click on one of
their advertisements.

=========================
Again, fool, the ad strawman is just that, your strawman. I'm not
talking
about ads ata all, killer.
That you are too stupid to understand the workings of usnet is quite
obvious, hypocrite.

Elaborate on the mechanism by which my usenet use increases the
expected number of animals who will die. You've given no clue as to
what this mechanism is. Put up or shut up.
======================

I have killer, many times. Your willful ignorance and terminal stupidity
demand that you refuse to undersatnd reality.


No, you haven't, not once. If you have, show me where.








That you continue to ignore
your entertainment
impacts on animals is quite amusing to watch, killer.

It's quite amusing to watch your pitiful efforts to find any impact
at
all coming from my usenet use.

=====================
Yes, it is amusing watching you tap dance. That you are willfully
ignorant
in your impact
has been shown time and again...

You've given no hint as to what the mechanism is whereby my usenet
usage increases the expected number of animals who will die. Which
means you've got nothing. All you can do is mindlessly hurl insults.
It really is quite pathetic.

==============
I have many times fool.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You've never once given any explanation
of how my usenet usage is going to cause more fish to die. Stop the
mindless abuse and just answer the question, if you can. Or admit that
you've got no justification for your claims.

You can't understand apparently, killer. Why do
you insist that the power consumption demands you place on usenet end at
the
end of your power plug, fool?

Because you can't hold me responsible for what Google et al. do. What
they do is their business, I can't influence it. They're not going to
change their behaviour on my account unless they have some reasonable
prospect of financial reward. If you think there's some mechanism
whereby I can influence their behaviour, specify what it is. Contrary
to your lies you've never done this.
=========================
What is your obcession with google? You a shill for them, like you are the
petro-chemical industry? I never once talkied about google or ads. Those
are your strawmen, killer.... Try to keep up, and learn about the internet,
hypocrite. If you're going to kill animals for your entertainment, you
might as well know it. Of course, you already do, that's why you insis on
discussing your strawmen, eh killer?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:00:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote:

I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting.

I don't read his points, they don't interest me any more.

haw haw haw

But we're not here to talk about him either.

Best not, eh?

He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.

Maybe he says that

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

"irate vegan" wrote in message
...


Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:24:38 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

I understand it rather well, and my being a cripple has
nothing to do with the issue being raised here.

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

As per your own argument against vegetarians, all
food production causes and promotes the collateral
deaths of animals, and any vegetarian who denies
your fact is a lying hypocrite. Your problem here
is that vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths
accrued during the production of their food stuff, but
you deny the collateral deaths associated with the
production of yours. That marks you down as the
hypocrite rather than the vegan, by dint of your own
argument against them. Way to go, dummy.

"irate vegan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:24:38 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

I understand it rather well, and my being a cripple has
nothing to do with the issue being raised here.

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

As per your own argument against vegetarians, all
food production causes and promotes the collateral
deaths of animals, and any vegetarian who denies
your fact is a lying hypocrite. Your problem here
is that vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths
accrued during the production of their food stuff, but
you deny the collateral deaths associated with the
production of yours. That marks you down as the
hypocrite rather than the vegan, by dint of your own
argument against them. Way to go, dummy.
===============
Nope. Again, I suggest you learn english, killer...

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:58:43 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:24:38 GMT, "ontheroad" wrote:
"irate vegan" wrote

Of course he does, and you know it. If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes. His farcical nonsense is right off the scale, and so
is his hypocrisy. He's the only one on these forums who
still denies the collateral deaths associated with the
production of his food items, and yet he's always the first
to try attacking vegetarians for allegedly denying the
collateral deaths associated with the production of their
food items, even after they've acknowledged them.

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

i see you still don't understand english, cripple....

I understand it rather well, and my being a cripple has
nothing to do with the issue being raised here.

To bad you have never been able to defend your ignorance, nor refute the
reality I post.

As per your own argument against vegetarians, all
food production causes and promotes the collateral
deaths of animals, and any vegetarian who denies
your fact is a lying hypocrite. Your problem here
is that vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths
accrued during the production of their food stuff, but
you deny the collateral deaths associated with the
production of yours. That marks you down as the
hypocrite rather than the vegan, by dint of your own
argument against them. Way to go, dummy.
===============
Nope. Again, I suggest you learn english, killer...

Great comeback, nebbish.

"irate vegan" wrote
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:00:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote:

I'm asking you
whether you agree with the farcical nonsense that Rick is spouting.

I don't read his points, they don't interest me any more.

haw haw haw

Meaning what? I stopped reading his posts quite some time ago.

But we're not here to talk about him either.

Best not, eh?

Doesn't really bother me, but it's not my topic of interest. If you're
implying that I won't acknowledge that some pro-meat advocates are nutcases,
then I refer you to my 7-year-long debate with ****wit harrison.


He
says that anyone who professes any concern for animals at all and at
the same time supports any processes that harm them is a hypocrite.

Maybe he says that

Of course he does, and you know it.

No, I don't know that. Ask him if that's what he is saying.

If an organised dog
fight was interrupted by a group of anti-dog fighters he
would call them hypocrites if they were wearing leather
shoes.

Maybe, ask him if that is his opinion on that scenario. His opinions are
his, not mine.

[..]

On Jul 6, 10:04 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 6, 2:33 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 6, 12:16 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 5, 1:40 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:

snip

====================
How many did you save? Remember, the first claim was yours, that
being
vegan saved animals.

Well, that's a good question. I don't know exactly. Probably about
20
per year if you count chickens. I haven't got any particular
interest
in proving to you that I'm doing a good job of saving animals. I'm
more interested in just getting on with the job. If you're going to
try and argue that I'm not doing that good a job, it's your job to
make your case.
=======================

That's my point. You are holding yourself back because you follow
only
your
simple rule for your simple mind. Say the chickens are 5 pounds, and
about
1000
calories per pound. 100,000 calories. What did you eat in place of
that?
Rice?
potatoes? Bananas? How many animals died for the production of
those
replacements?
10? 20? 1000? Do you care? Your actions say no.

Yes, I do care. I think I am making every reasonable effort under the
circumstances to reduce my impact on animals. I think that it would be
very difficult to get reliable information about what choices would
reduce my impact further, and I think the gains would be trivial.

But in any case, I really don't care about your opinion. I'm not
interested in proving to you that I care about animals, or in meeting
the standards that you for some reason think I should meet, even
though you yourself don't meet them. Your contempt is really of no
interest to me. I think it's absurd. We're here to discuss animal
ethics, not your opinion of me.

Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar
panels.

=======================
We've been through this bs before, killer. Skipping the fact that
I
don't
believe you,

Well, that's pitiful desperation. If you're going to criticize
someone's lifestyle when you don't know the facts, you can't just
say
"I don't believe you" when they tell you the facts. If you're going
to
contest what I say you've got to give some reason for thinking that
you've got access to a more reliable source than me.

since you're already a proven liar,

Absolute nonsense. I've never told a single lie here and you know
it.

your use of the internet, and the
demands you are part of go
far beyond the electric your computer uses.

Yes, I discussed this argument of yours. I don't buy it. No
advertiser
is going to give Google more money unless I actually click on one of
their advertisements.

=========================
Again, fool, the ad strawman is just that, your strawman. I'm not
talking
about ads ata all, killer.
That you are too stupid to understand the workings of usnet is quite
obvious, hypocrite.

Elaborate on the mechanism by which my usenet use increases the
expected number of animals who will die. You've given no clue as to
what this mechanism is. Put up or shut up.
======================

I have killer, many times. Your willful ignorance and terminal stupidity
demand that you refuse to undersatnd reality.

No, you haven't, not once. If you have, show me where.

That you continue to ignore
your entertainment
impacts on animals is quite amusing to watch, killer.

It's quite amusing to watch your pitiful efforts to find any impact
at
all coming from my usenet use.

=====================
Yes, it is amusing watching you tap dance. That you are willfully
ignorant
in your impact
has been shown time and again...

You've given no hint as to what the mechanism is whereby my usenet
usage increases the expected number of animals who will die. Which
means you've got nothing. All you can do is mindlessly hurl insults.
It really is quite pathetic.

==============
I have many times fool.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You've never once given any explanation
of how my usenet usage is going to cause more fish to die. Stop the
mindless abuse and just answer the question, if you can. Or admit that
you've got no justification for your claims.

You can't understand apparently, killer. Why do
you insist that the power consumption demands you place on usenet end at
the
end of your power plug, fool?

Because you can't hold me responsible for what Google et al. do. What
they do is their business, I can't influence it. They're not going to
change their behaviour on my account unless they have some reasonable
prospect of financial reward. If you think there's some mechanism
whereby I can influence their behaviour, specify what it is. Contrary
to your lies you've never done this.
=========================

What is your obcession with google? You a shill for them, like you are the
petro-chemical industry? I never once talkied about google or ads.

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Those
are your strawmen, killer.... Try to keep up, and learn about the internet,
hypocrite. If you're going to kill animals for your entertainment, you
might as well know it. Of course, you already do, that's why you insis on
discussing your strawmen, eh killer?

Yawn. If you'd state one conceivable mechanism whereby my behaviour
could lead to more animal deaths, we'd have something to discuss.

"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous". Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths. If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.

On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment. I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.


On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.

I was reading to see what you said, not rick.

I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier of
being condescending and you gave me an example.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your rules.
Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and never followed
through on it. The point is that you don't like the rough language, I don't
mind it at all, at least it's direct. I don't like the air of superiority
you try to project, I find that offensive.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.


On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I've read enough of them over the years. If you read his posts you should
know that his approach doesn't change no matter who he talks to, so to take
it personally when he calls you "killer" and "hypocrite" is pretty silly.

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

You beg for it. Acting haughty and superior on usenet is a guarantee that
you will be verbally abused.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

See, I don't agree. I find rought language refreshingly honest and direct. I
find evasion, condescension. sophistry, self-righteousness, those kinds of
attitudes offensive.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses
hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

Maybe, sounds fishy, but even if it is, the argument still holds for the
vast majority of people for whom you presume to speak, they don't all live
off solar panels. It also applies to the rest of your consumption as I said
below.


If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies
to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require
to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.

Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.

I was reading to see what you said, not rick.

I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier
of being condescending and you gave me an example.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your
rules. Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and
never followed through on it.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.

rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.



The point is that you don't like the rough
language, I don't mind it at all, at least it's direct. I don't like the
air of superiority you try to project, I find that offensive.

It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.


You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

That is exactly right.


On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I've read enough of them over the years. If you read his posts you
should know that his approach doesn't change no matter who he talks to,
so to take it personally when he calls you "killer" and "hypocrite" is
pretty silly.

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

You beg for it. Acting haughty and superior on usenet is a guarantee
that you will be verbally abused.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

See, I don't agree. I find rought language refreshingly honest and
direct. I find evasion, condescension. sophistry, self-righteousness,
those kinds of attitudes offensive.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer
uses hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

Maybe, sounds fishy, but even if it is, the argument still holds for the
vast majority of people for whom you presume to speak, they don't all
live off solar panels. It also applies to the rest of your consumption
as I said below.


If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle
applies to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you
require to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.

On Jul 10, 4:55 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.

I was reading to see what you said, not rick.


If you don't know the context you're not competent to comment on the
matter.

I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier of
being condescending and you gave me an example.


The context is relevant. I would have spoken differently if he had not
been being so extraordinarily obnoxious.

All this stuff about me being condescending is really tiresome
nonsense. You are a lot more condescending than me. You say you're
just analyzing what you see, well, so am I. None of you are in
anything like a position to complain about any aspect of my behaviour.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your rules.

Yes, sometimes I make a decision not to bother responding to something
someone has said.

Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and never followed
through on it.

I do follow through on it in the sense that I only engage with people
to the extent that I feel inclined to.

The point is that you don't like the rough language, I don't
mind it at all, at least it's direct.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of rough language every now and then,
but you people are constantly expressing a level of scorn and disdain
about every aspect of a person and everything he says which is totally
out of touch with reality. There's no rational basis for it, it's just
because they're vegan. No sensible person could seriously maintain
that all the derogatory opinions you people express are reasonable.

I don't like the air of superiority
you try to project, I find that offensive.


Why? I think I'm a lot better at maths than you, do you find that
offensive? Why would you? It's an obvious fact, there's no reasonable
doubt about it, and there's no reason why you should feel bad about
it, I'm sure you're good at lots of other things and it's partly due
to certain decisions you've made about what to do with your time. And
I also think I've studied moral philosophy a bit more deeply than you
and understand some aspects of it a bit better. You think I'm wrong,
well, I might be, but what of it? Why is it offensive? And these views
of mine wouldn't even come up if you people weren't constantly trying
to denigrate my intellectual abilities. No-one I interact with outside
this forum finds me offensive. The idea that any of you have grounds
to be offended by me in the context of the behaviour I put up with
from each and every one of you is utterly absurd.

Contrary to what you say my alleged "air of superiority" is not the
cause of the treatment I receive here. The cause is the position I
take. You all think that if someone takes a position like mine that
entitles you to abuse them. I think your grounds for this view are
incredibly weak, hence I find your behaviour offensive.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I've read enough of them over the years. If you read his posts you should
know that his approach doesn't change no matter who he talks to, so to take
it personally when he calls you "killer" and "hypocrite" is pretty silly.


I'm not taking it personally. But my response to him was perfectly
reasonable in the context. The idea of finding fault with me for being
"condescending" with him is absurd.

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

You beg for it. Acting haughty and superior on usenet is a guarantee that
you will be verbally abused.


I don't act "haughty and superior". The behaviour of mine which you
think is "haughty and superior" is not the cause of the treatment I
receive here, it started from day one and it's because I'm vegan. You
think this behaviour is no big deal, fine. But your attempt to
rationalize that I somehow "deserve" it is absurd.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

See, I don't agree. I find rought language refreshingly honest and direct. I
find evasion, condescension. sophistry, self-righteousness, those kinds of
attitudes offensive.


No evasion, sophistry, or self-righteousness. A lot less condescension
than you.

I'm afraid you're not going to convince me that any reasonable person
would view my behaviour here as somehow being more offensive than what
I put up with. I think the idea is a joke.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses
hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

Maybe, sounds fishy, but even if it is, the argument still holds for the
vast majority of people for whom you presume to speak, they don't all live
off solar panels. It also applies to the rest of your consumption as I said
below.


We'll talk about that later. Rick set himself the task of showing that
my usenet usage kills animals. He failed.





If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies
to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require
to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.

I was reading to see what you said, not rick.

I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier
of being condescending and you gave me an example.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your
rules. Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and
never followed through on it.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.


What happened was that I said that I would not bother to engage with
your arguments about animal ethics unless you apologized for mocking
me for having a history of mental illness. I also expressed the view
that to continue to make your arguments when I had made this
undertaking was cowardly. I made no comment about your "moral
obligations". It wasn't a moral evaluation, just an expression of
disgust. Obviously you have a moral obligation not to mock people for
having a history of mental illness, not to abuse women and call them
sluts, not to make up silly stories about people soliciting gay sex on
houseboats, and so forth. The moral issue is not really the point, the
point is that you are behaving like a twelve-year-old. I certainly was
highly offended that anyone would behave in such a disgusting way at
the time, but I have now learnt to appreciate the comic side of your
behaviour.

rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.

The point is that you don't like the rough
language, I don't mind it at all, at least it's direct. I don't like the
air of superiority you try to project, I find that offensive.

It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

That is exactly right.


In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.
Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".
You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.
I was reading to see what you said, not rick.
I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.
His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier
of being condescending and you gave me an example.
Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.
No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.
You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your
rules. Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and
never followed through on it.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.


What happened was that I said

You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.


rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.

The point is that you don't like the rough
language, I don't mind it at all, at least it's direct. I don't like the
air of superiority you try to project, I find that offensive.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.


In the eyes of any decent person

You deserve the abuse you get.