XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:54:26 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Not ones with any sense.   
      
       ALL who are willing to consider the entire situation, whether they have any   
   sense or not.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >It's unimportant to almost everyone, because almost everyone can see   
   >what meaningless bullshit it is.   
      
       It's a true aspect of the situation that you don't want people to take 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?   
   >   
   >Everybody who is paying attention believes that   
      
       Try presenting evidence that I don't. You can't. But every post in which I   
   point out that you people are opposed to everyone appreciating when decent AW   
   successfully results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock, I'm   
   posting in favor of decent AW.   
      
   >truth, even your   
   >ass-chum Smartypants.   
   >   
   >> . . .   
   >>>>       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.   
   >   
   >I've never said I think you believe in multiple lives.   
      
       Good that you haven't agreed with Goo about his lies regarding that issue   
   then, IF you really never have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)