XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Rupert wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?   
   >>>   
   >>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it   
   >>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.   
   >>   
   >>      You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less   
   can   
   >> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular   
   are   
   >> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as   
   to   
   >> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's   
   amusing   
   >> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very   
   >> incapable of even making an attempt.   
   >   
   >BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep   
   >you from being labelled a fuckwit.   
      
       I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct.   
      
   >>      BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able   
   to   
   >> consider the possibility unlike yourself.   
   >>   
   >>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their   
   >>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".   
   >>   
   >>      I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would   
   depend   
   >> on individual interpretation.   
   >   
   >Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as   
   >you do, is moronic.   
      
       LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron.   
   Hilarious!!!   
      
   >> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to   
   >> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to   
   point   
   >> out that they don't?   
   >   
   >You pose it as a fact   
      
       Because it's a fact.   
      
   >that we should consider as unfavorable for them,   
   >that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".   
      
       I post in favor of decent AW and appreciation for when it's successful, and   
   eliminationists oppose that because it works against elimination. DUH!!!   
      
   >You're bobbing and weaving trying to hide from your own position, you've   
   >been doing that for several years.   
   >   
   >> Do you think it's an attack on Zebras when people point out   
   >> that they have stripes?   
   >   
   >Stripes on zebras don't depend on non-existent animals "getting to   
   >experience life".   
   >   
   >> Do you think it's an attack on meat consumers to point   
   >> out that they contribute to life for livestock?   
   >   
   >I think that from the standpoint of assessing morals and ethics, which   
   >is what we are supposed to be doing here, it is a totally meaningless   
   >fact,   
      
       It's not meaningless because you people are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into   
   consideration, showing that it means something to you. If it didn't work   
   against   
   elimination THEN it would be meaningless to you, but since it DOES work against   
   elimination it has enough meaning to you that you don't mind maniacally   
   opposing   
   it for over a decade.   
      
   >just as stating that vegans do NOT contribute to livestock lives   
   >is, in and of itself, totally meaningless.   
      
       No it's not, since apparently you're opposed to that being pointed out too.   
      
   >  >> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that   
   >>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.   
   >>   
   >>      That's a blatant lie I doubt anyone is stupid enough to    
   elieve...except   
   >> MAYBE for yourself, but doubt even you are honestly that stupid.   
   >   
   >If you don't believe in non-existent animals then you can't criticize   
   >vegans for not "bringing them into existence".   
   >   
   >>      Since billions of people DO believe in multiple lives, why is it so   
   >> important to you Goos to get people to think I do to? Do you even have an   
   idea   
   >> why it's important to you for people to believe that particular lie? What   
   if I   
   >> was a Hindu and did believe it? Then what?   
   >   
   >Your idiocy never ends.   
      
       LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people   
   to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You   
   goobers really are pathetic.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)