XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >You proved that you're a moron.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>       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!!!   
   >   
   >I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are   
   >not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.."   
   >That's horseshit.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >Yes, with no importance.   
      
       It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination.   
   It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to   
   those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into   
   consideration.   
      
   >>> 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   
   >   
   >No you don't,   
      
       That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a   
   stupidly blatant lie, if anyone?   
      
   . . .   
   >>      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.   
   >   
   >It just keeps getting worse for you   
      
       LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what   
   you   
   think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in   
   multiple lives. This reveals your and the Goober's ineptitude in a very clear   
   and amusing way, from my pov.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)