Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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? |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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 |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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... |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. [..] |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"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. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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 - |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|