Invitation to Derek: show me the true path
Rupert
coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
electricity? Why?
Dutch
> So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
He won't, he can't, there isn't.
> Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
> electricity? Why?
Yes, because the needs of humans trump the needs of
other animals.
Rupert
We'll wait and see what Derek has to say; you also are welcome to try
to show me the true path if you feel so inclined, but last time you
weren't.
Dutch
The true path if you want to call it that is to be
reasonable. Don't fall into semantic potholes like
thinking that "speciesism" is anything like "sexism".
We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
our species is in competition with them. Don't torture
animals, don't act with callous disregard for them.
Try to act in ways that protect the environment,
support and advocate for ways to improve conditions
for animals. People like Derek who claim to believe in
or that they are in accordance with extreme AR theory
are delusional. I know that was not what you wanted to
hear, but it's the answer.
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:39 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> >>> coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
> >> He won't, he can't, there isn't.
>
> >>> Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
> >>> electricity? Why?
> >> Yes, because the needs of humans trump the needs of
> >> other animals.
>
> > We'll wait and see what Derek has to say; you also are welcome to try
> > to show me the true path if you feel so inclined, but last time you
> > weren't.
>
> The true path if you want to call it that is to be
> reasonable.
Well, I remember people used to give me a hard time about the word
"reasonable". I don't see how any of my current practice is
unreasonable.
> Don't fall into semantic potholes like
> thinking that "speciesism" is anything like "sexism".
> We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
> with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
> our species is in competition with them. Don't torture
> animals, don't act with callous disregard for them.
> Try to act in ways that protect the environment,
> support and advocate for ways to improve conditions
> for animals. People like Derek who claim to believe in
> or that they are in accordance with extreme AR theory
> are delusional. I know that was not what you wanted to
> hear, but it's the answer.
Actually, I agree with everything from "The world is..." to "...are
delusional."
Dutch
> On Aug 23, 3:37 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 12:39 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>>>>> coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>>>> He won't, he can't, there isn't.
>>>>> Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
>>>>> electricity? Why?
>>>> Yes, because the needs of humans trump the needs of
>>>> other animals.
>>> We'll wait and see what Derek has to say; you also are welcome to try
>>> to show me the true path if you feel so inclined, but last time you
>>> weren't.
>> The true path if you want to call it that is to be
>> reasonable.
>
> Well, I remember people used to give me a hard time about the word
> "reasonable". I don't see how any of my current practice is
> unreasonable.
It's not, that's the point. It's the thinking behind
it that is unreasonable. It's taking a position along
the continuum of reasonableness and seeing other
places along the continuum as unreasonable, or wrong.
>> Don't fall into semantic potholes like
>> thinking that "speciesism" is anything like "sexism".
>> We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
>> with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
>> our species is in competition with them. Don't torture
>> animals, don't act with callous disregard for them.
>> Try to act in ways that protect the environment,
>> support and advocate for ways to improve conditions
>> for animals. People like Derek who claim to believe in
>> or that they are in accordance with extreme AR theory
>> are delusional. I know that was not what you wanted to
>> hear, but it's the answer.
>
> Actually, I agree with everything from "The world is..." to "...are
> delusional."
You ought to agree with all of it.
Derek
>So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
years.
>Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
>electricity? Why?
If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
years.
Y' know, your meltdown reminds me of Karen's, and Slick's
response to it.
"We all have our occasional meltdowns. Take a
break and think. The problem with the above exit
is that you essentially throw a grenade into the
bunker as you take leave of all those people
who remain in it, fighting for a better society.
You may have lost faith in the arguments that
you, I, and others have presented in favor of
the approach that we have taken, but just saying
"I was wrong" without explaining how you have
reached this conclusion is, IMO, the more "cowardly"
approach. This may sound a little harsh, but I don't
feel malice toward you, just a little anger that
you have chosen to allow whatever personal problems
you are having to taint all of the decidedly rational
arguments that you - and me, and Feral, and G*RD*N,
and numerous others - have made over the years. Please
either post a rational reason for your change of
heart, or just say that you are having a crisis and
may not return. I'm saying this because no one particularly
likes me anyway, but I'm also sure that others also feel
wronged by your "announcement". "
pearl
> >> We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
> >> with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
> >> our species is in competition with them. Don't torture
> >> animals, don't act with callous disregard for them.
> >> Try to act in ways that protect the environment,
> >> support and advocate for ways to improve conditions
> >> for animals.
'SEVEN STOREYS OF ABUNDANCE; A VISIT TO ROBERT
HART'S FOREST GARDEN
Following the Permaculture Design Course run by 'Naturewise' in the
Spring 1997, a group of graduates decided to visit what has been
described as possibly the only fully developed working Permaculture
site in the UK, Robert Hart's Forest Garden.
Situated at Wenlock Edge on the Welsh borders, Robert began the
project over thirty years ago with the intention of providing a healthy
and therapuetic environment for himself and his brother Lacon, born
with severe learning disabilities.
Starting as relatively conventional smallholders, Robert soon discovered
that maintaining large annual vegetable beds, rearing livestock and taking
care of an orchard were tasks beyond their strength. However, he also
observed that a small bed of perennial vegetables and herbs they had
planted up was looking after itself with little or no intervention.
Furthermore, these plants provided interesting and unusual additions to
the diet, as well as seeming to promote health and vigour in both body
and mind.
Noting the maxim of Hippocrates to "make food your medicine and
medicine your food", Robert adopted a vegan, 90% raw food diet.
He also began to examine the interactions and relationships that take
place between plants in natural systems, particularly in woodland, the
climax eco-system of a cool temperate region such as the British Isles.
This led him to evolve the concept of the 'Forest Garden': Based on the
observation that the natural forest can be divided into distinct layers or
'storeys', he developed an existing small orchard of apples and pears
into an edible landscape consisting of seven dimensions;
I) A 'canopy' layer consisting of the original mature fruit trees.
2) A 'low-tree' layer of smaller nut and fruit trees on dwarfing
root stocks.
3) A 'shrub layer' of fruit bushes such as currants and berries.
4) A 'herbaceous layer' of perennial vegetables and herbs.
5) A 'ground cover' layer of edible plants that spread horizontally.
6) A 'rhizosphere' or 'underground' dimension of plants grown
for their roots and tubers.
7) A vertical 'layer' of vines and climbers.
[illustration -
The Forest Garden: A Seven Level Beneficial Guild
1. Canopy (large fruit and nut trees)
2. Low tree layer (dwarf fruit trees)
3. Shrub layer (currants and berries)
4. Herbaceous (comfreys, beets, herbs)
5. Rhizosphere (root vegetables)
6. Soil surface (ground cover, eg. strawberry, etc)
7. Vertical layer (climbers, vines) ]
Stepping into the Forest Garden is like entering another world. All
around is lushness and abundance, a sharp contrast to the dust bowl
aridity of the surrounding prairie farmed fields and farmlands. At
first the sheer profusion of growth is bewildering, like entering a
wild wood. We're not used to productive landscapes appearing so
disorderly. But it doesn't take long for the true harmony of nature's
systems to reveal themselves, and the realisation sinks in that in fact
it is the Agribiz monocultures, with their heavy machinery, genetic
manipulation, erosion, high water inputs, pesticides and fertilisers
which are in a total state of maintained chaos. Whereas hectares of
land may produce bushel after bushel of but one crop, genetically
degraded and totally vulnerable to ever more virulent strains of pest
and disease without the dubious protection of massive chemical
inputs, just an eighth of an acre of a garden such as Robert's can
output a tremendous variety of yields. Whilst too early in the year for
the apples, plums and pears beginning to swell in the trees, we were
surrounded by gluts of black, red and whitecurrants, gooseberries,
raspberries and loganberries; as well as a profusion of saladings
such as sorrel, lovage, tree-onions, wild garlic, borage, lemon balm
and many other herbs.
Foraging a meal for the nine of us was an extremely enjoyable task,
not like work at all. Robert, a gentle and erudite man, yet possessed
of a great clarity of purpose, joined us for our campfire feast. As we
sat and chatted into the evening he explained his motivations and
hopes for the future. Of his plans to expand the original Forest Garden,
and his dream of a network of such gardens covering not only Britain
but the world, bringing an abundance of natural food, and healing to
both peoplekind and the planet. He spoke of his philosophical
inspiration by figures as diverse as John Seymour, Ghandi, Kropotkin
and Kagawa; of the antecedents of the Forest Garden such as the
'home gardens' of Kerala, where most of the land is covered with
productive trees; and later sang us songs that he used to share with
his late brother Lacon, including those of murdered Chilean land and
human rights campaigner Victor Jara.
This was a magical evening, an illustration that perhaps the primary
forces within the Forest Garden are of spirituality and peace. Whilst
being highly productive of nuts, fruits, fresh perennial vegetables
and medicinal herbs, the most important yield of this place is the
reminder that there is much more to how we find sustenance as
human beings than what we consume, than looking at our sources
of nourishment purely in terms of net tonnes per hectare. The
forest garden is an idea whose time has come.
"Obviously, few of us are in a position to restore the forests.. But
tens of millions of us have gardens, or access to open spaces
such as industrial wastelands, where trees can be planted. and if
full advantage can be taken of the potentialities that are available
even in heavily built up areas, new 'city forests' can arise..."
(Robert A.de J.Hart)
GRAHAM BURNETT
Taken from VOHAN News International, issue 2, available from
'Anandavan
http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden/page2.html
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:UDQrk.209292$gc5.82940@pd7urf2no...
>
>>>> We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
>>>> with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
>>>> our species is in competition with them. Don't torture
>>>> animals, don't act with callous disregard for them.
>>>> Try to act in ways that protect the environment,
>>>> support and advocate for ways to improve conditions
>>>> for animals.
>
> 'SEVEN STOREYS
Forests Good, now would you please do your
Copy-Pasting in a new thread.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:UDQrk.209292$gc5.82940@pd7urf2no...
> >
> >>>> We're not saints, we're animals. The world is dense
> >>>> with living organisms, we can't avoid killing them,
> >>>> our species is in competition with them.
> > 'SEVEN STOREYS OF ABUNDANCE;
>
> Forests Good, now would you please do your
> Copy-Pasting in a new thread.
You are ......? Good suggestion tho'...
Into a fortuitious wind, with a blessing.
Rupert
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>
> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
> years.
>
It is not that I have formed the view that you have something to teach
me and I crave your wisdom. I am happy to consider the possibility
that you might have something to teach me, and I would be interested
to hear you expound and defend your position. It is an invitation to
civilized conversation. If you felt inclined to expound and defend
your views I would have been happy to listen with an open mind. If you
do not feel inclined to do that right now then I am not especially
inclined to trawl through the Google archives for your words of
wisdom; I think my time would be better spent reading Tom Regan, Gary
Francione, David Sztybel, those sorts of people.
I am happy to make an attempt at civilized conversation with you if
you feel it might be profitable.
I think you need to spend some time engaging in some moral self-
examination. Either you genuinely believe I'm mentally unwell or you
don't. If you don't, then it's morally despicable to use my mental
health history as a means of denigrating me. If you do, well, it's
complete nonsense, but if that's what you really believe then you've
got an obligation to stop engaging in combative debate with me and say
"Rupert, you're not well enough to participate in this forum at the
moment, please go and seek treatment." It would be morally despicable
to treat a person suffering from pyschosis as though they were someone
who was able to hold their own in a debate on this forum just like
anyone else and could be treated in the same way. I don't know if you
understand very clearly what psychosis is but an allegation that I'm
experiencing a recurrence of pyschotic symptoms is not something to be
tossed out lightly as a way of scoring a point.
I mean, I am happy to try to explain to you what psychosis is if you
want. Apparently you've been reading about it on Wikipedia. You're not
competent to diagnose it yet, I'm afraid. But if you really believe
I've got it, it doesn't reflect well on you for you to just throw out
a remark to that effect as a way of scoring a point and then continue
to debate with me just as you would with anyone else.
You should also treat me with decency in our debates and give me
credit for arguing in good faith in any case, regardless of whether
you like me or what views you have about my mental health, but that's
another matter. I don't think I'm going to bother with our current
conversations in the other thread, in which you're accusing me of
lying and so forth. I'm not lying, but I have no real interest in
applying myself to the futile task of trying to reason with you at the
moment.
> >Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
> >electricity? Why?
>
> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
> years.
>
A straight answer "yes" or "no" would be nice.
> Y' know, your meltdown reminds me of Karen's, and Slick's
> response to it.
>
I don't know if you'd call it a meltdown. It doesn't reflect any real
change in my level of confidence in my position (yes, I believe that I
have been putting forward a coherent position over the last six
years). It's just that I'm feeling frustrated about the difficulties
I'm experiencing trying to convey what my position is and I don't feel
inclined to increase my efforts at clarity right now. I'd prefer to
just adopt a stance of neutrality until I've got the time to do an
exposition of my position that I would be satisfied with.
I don't believe that I've been less clear than other people, but some
obviously feel that I have, so there it is. All I can do is make
further efforts to communicate effectively, when I've got the time.
> "We all have our occasional meltdowns. Take a
> break and think. The problem with the above exit
> is that you essentially throw a grenade into the
> bunker as you take leave of all those people
> who remain in it, fighting for a better society.
> You may have lost faith in the arguments that
> you, I, and others have presented in favor of
> the approach that we have taken, but just saying
> "I was wrong" without explaining how you have
> reached this conclusion is, IMO, the more "cowardly"
> approach. This may sound a little harsh, but I don't
> feel malice toward you, just a little anger that
> you have chosen to allow whatever personal problems
> you are having to taint all of the decidedly rational
> arguments that you - and me, and Feral, and G*RD*N,
> and numerous others - have made over the years. Please
> either post a rational reason for your change of
> heart, or just say that you are having a crisis and
> may not return. I'm saying this because no one particularly
> likes me anyway, but I'm also sure that others also feel
> wronged by your "announcement". "
Okay, well are you saying this applies to me? You're saying I should
feel bad because I've left the Side? I mean, only a short while ago
you were saying I was a joke, I wasn't a real animal rights advocate,
I was totally unclear and incoherent, so why am I such a loss to the
Side? If I'm a joke and my contributions are not valuable, then surely
it doesn't matter, it may even be a positive improvement. If my
contributions are valued then maybe you should make some effort to be
decent to me and express any disagreements you may have respectfully.
Well, hey, you should do that anyway...
I am not going to abandon veganism or animal activism, and I am not
retracting any statement I've made over the years in the sense of
saying they were wrong, it's just that I'm not going to defend any of
them either, not right now. It doesn't matter whether I retract any
argument I've made in any case, any argument I've made stands or falls
on its own merits.
If you are concerned that more people need to contribute to the cause
of rationally defending radical reform in our treatment of animals
then maybe you will consider making some efforts of your own towards
that end. As I say, I would be interested to hear you expound and
defend your position.
Derek
>On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>>
>> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>> years.
>
Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
want to understand it.
>You should also treat me with decency in our debates
Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
"You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
conversation with me, not to mention that you are
unworthy of being spat upon by me."
Rupert 23 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6b4gct
Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
SystemX
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>>>> coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>>> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>>> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>>> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>>> years.
>> I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>
> Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
> explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
> your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
> explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
> satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
> further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
> want to understand it.
>
"indomitable position" LOL.
Looking back at some of your posts you come across as a lack luster
sycophant.
>> You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>
> Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>
> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
> Rupert 23 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6b4gct
>
> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
Rupert is demonstrably more intelligent and competent that you. - By FAR.
dh
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>>coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>
>If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>years.
>
>>Am I morally entitled to buy antipsychotic medication, tofu,
>>electricity? Why?
>
>If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>years.
>
>Y' know, your meltdown reminds me of Karen's, and Slick's
>response to it.
>
> "We all have our occasional meltdowns. Take a
> break and think.
Think it *through* instead of just stopping when
you get to the absurdity.
>The problem with the above exit
> is that you essentially throw a grenade into the
> bunker as you take leave of all those people
> who remain in it,
It's a part of leaving absurdity behind...maybe in
a way it's a sad part, but moving on often/usually is.
>fighting for a better society.
Those who overcome obsession with the misnomer
can go on to fight for positive lives for domestic animals.
It opens the door for them to consider WAAAAAY more
options.
> You may have lost faith in the arguments that
> you, I, and others have presented in favor of
> the approach that we have taken, but just saying
> "I was wrong" without explaining how you have
> reached this conclusion is, IMO, the more "cowardly"
> approach.
He explained it right from the start. Unless he really
is badly confused, the more cowardly part is when he
let you clowns get to him and tried denying that he
has consideration for the animals. That's where he's
being the wuss. He is considering the animals, but
you eliminationists have somehow managed to make
him ashamed of it and it's pitiful that you could do it,
but he's new to thinking beyond his own interests
and it might take a while for him to get faith in the
concept of considering other beings also. In your
little clique all he had to think about was the one
obsessive folie you people have in common, but if
he really is finally beginning to consider the animals
as well it leaves all of you way behind, but it also
opens up so many new things to take into consideration
that it could take a fairly long adjustment period.
>This may sound a little harsh, but I don't
> feel malice toward you, just a little anger that
> you have chosen to allow whatever personal problems
> you are having to taint all of the decidedly rational
> arguments that you - and me, and Feral, and G*RD*N,
> and numerous others - have made over the years.
Other people can hope that he's moving beyond
obession with the most extreme of positions, to one
that can help billions of animals as well as humans
...both wildlife and domestic animals when we
consider the wildlife that thrives better in grazing
areas than it does in crop fields... He can have
freedom to think beyond nothing...he doesn't have
to worry about thinking too much or too far, which
is exactly what you're bitching at him for doing.
>Please
> either post a rational reason for your change of
> heart,
He already told you that he learned to have
some appreciation for the lives of livestock
which are of positive value. Maybe some day
he'll learn to do that with pets too. You would
hate it, but he would be a better person for it
considering the fact that he claims to have
interest in animals. Maybe he's finally beginning
to see how...uh....less than intelligent it looks
for a person to say they care about animals,
while at the same time opposing the idea of
taking their lives into consideration. Doing that
looks very much less than intelligent.
>or just say that you are having a crisis and
> may not return.
Or say he finally thought things through and
realised how stifling the restrictions placed on
the eliminationist's mind are, and he has moved
beyond them to include many more ideas, and
much greater potential.
>I'm saying this because no one particularly
> likes me anyway, but I'm also sure that others also feel
> wronged by your "announcement". "
There are other people who feel encouraged
by it...well...who can see the potential, but it
would be foolish to put any faith in how much
further it will or won't get developed. He's not
at all stable with the AW concept yet, so it's
possible that his "friends" might still be able to
drag him back down in the shit with him. I guess
it's a lot more likely that they/you will drag him
back down, than it is that he'll drag them/you
up out of it...lol...it's amusing to think about him
successfully doing that...
dh
>I am not going to abandon veganism
Hopefully that's not really true, and some day you will
happily contribute to decent lives for livestock with your
lifestyle. I still suggest beginning with buying cage free
eggs, and maybe even eating one from time to time.
>or animal activism,
What's the main difference between AW and the
misnomer in regards to domestic animals? It's the
animals, of course.
dh
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>>> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>>>
>>> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>>> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>>> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>>> years.
>>
>>I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>
>Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
>explain and defend my position
Yes he certainly does.
>because you've abandoned your own.
LOL!!! He does regardless of that, you poor moron.
>The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
>explanations defending the pro-AR position,
There's nothing you're not ashamed of, otherwise
you would have posted that instead of your pathetic
slinking and wussing away from the request, which also
revealed that you have no confidence in your own
supposed "explanations". You've certainly never given
me any good reason(s) why I should think elimination is
better than providing decent AW. None!
>and I'm now
>satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
>further argument from me today,
Translation: Just as you've never had any good argument
for considering elimination to be superior to providing decent
AW in the past, you still don't have any today either.
>so start Googling if you want to understand it.
LOL! The suggestion is so stupid that it's amusing, you
fool Goober.
>>You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>
>Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>
> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
> Rupert 23 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6b4gct
Did he happen to say that in response to all the
pissing and shitting you've been trying to do on him?
>Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
There are a number of reasons a person can
consider that he's moving on to the higher ground
...like the fact that from there he could finally actually
consider the animals as well as himself, for example.
You still could not, but he could be in the position to.
Rupert
>
> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
Yup. I went out of my way to be patient with you for plenty long
enough. You have been evincing a lack of mental competence lately, and
since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
health history you *are* unworthy of being spat upon by me. I do have
the moral high ground, I can't lose it if that's how you behave. I
thought Ball was the only one around here who would sink that low.
Derek
>On Aug 24, 9:46 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
>> >> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>>
>> >> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
>> >> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
>> >> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
>> >> years.
>>
>> >I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>>
>> Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
>> explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
>> your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
>> explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
>> satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
>> further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
>> want to understand it.
>>
>> >You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>>
>> Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>>
>> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
>> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
>> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
>>
>> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
>
>Yup.
Well, what else could I possibly expect from a psycho, eh?
>since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
>health history
But that's what you are, rupie: a psycho,
"I need an antipsychotic medication to function properly."
and if you're offended by what you are, then so be it. Maybe,
if you ever experience a few moments of clarity, you may
realise that that's why I can never take you seriously. What
on Earth can I or anyone possibly gain by trying to discuss
ethics with a psycho?
pearl
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm *
*
Rupert: if you've not yet looked at this resource, please do
it now; you will find an *exact* description of these types.
Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
The following was written and posted by his brother. Seems
Derek's predictably "graduated" from non-humans to humans.
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
From: chessd...@hotmail.com (Judas)
Date: 21 May 2002 13:27:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Refugees.
...
He has no ethics or morals and should not be on this newsgroup. He
has cut the head off a kitten, that his wife Belinda bought him as a
present, with a garden spade, less than 7 years ago! He has regularly
beaten his dog Merlin and his wife and kids. I have seen him wring the
knecks of 20 chickens caged in a coup, it was disgusting.
I am not lying on any of these issues and I would be happy to discuss
any comment you may have on the above or Derek's real moral and
ethical standings without his pompous latin lingo he uses lately,
pathetic "
'8. One last thing about your cruelty to animals, I will list some I
remeber and you can deny them all to your newsgroup but not to your
wife or yourself we all know the truth.
a. chopping of a cats head with a shovel.
b. putting rats in a barrel and starve them then adding a cat to hear
it killed. On Meads farm
c. Putting rats in a purpose built cage with a hot plate underneath
to watch them smoke and jump up and down frantically.
d. Your wife throwing the pellets of your rifle when walking with her
on your first date. She thought it was disgusting and had to hide
from because you went into a rage.
e. When your budgie was stalked by a cat you trapped it in the kitchen
one night and attacked it with a hammer. Your wife screamed at you and
you eventually let it out. The house stunk of cat fear and boasted
that you hit it as hard as you could on the head with the hammer and
you were surprised that it didn't really hurt it.
f. You beat your dog with a stick and broke a broom handle, on one
occasion, on his arse.
g. you rang the necks of 20 chickens in a coup when you could have
given them away.
h. You set fire to a duck by dousing with lighter fluid putting it on
the lake at Woburn to watch it sink as the feathers burnt. The head
of the duck would remain above the water and you thought it was
hilarious.
i. You have thrown cats off bridges in Dog Kennel lane onto railway
lines.
j. You used to stick stinging nettles under a horses tail in a field
we knew by Bennet wreck and you would watch gallop around the field
clamping the nettles more to its arse.
k. You used to throw large chalk blocks on rabbits that had "mix" and
see the difference of the blood on the white chalk.
l. You used to hang out of mum's bedroom window waiting for birds to
come on the lawn and shoot them with your rifle. Do you remember our
neighbour complaining that his gutter was full of dead birds which you
had hit on his roof?
m. you put rats in barrles of water and watched them slowly die.
Well must go and see what else you have written and denied.
...
> > And I am just here to say to this group that Derek is the enemy within
> > like he has been with me and you don't know him for what he is. He is
> > not a kind or intelligent man and he is embarrassing us all with his
> > style on this forum. And as you know anyone can be who they like on
> > the net. I don't care what anyone thinks of me but you should know
> > he is conning you all.
.. '
http://snipurl.com/6isn
Derek
.. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
you would not be bullied in the first place, you stupid
whore.
>Rupert: if you've not yet looked at this resource, please do
>it now; you will find an *exact* description of these types.
>
>Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
pretend to be animal rights advocates. rupie is not an animal
rights advocate, as I've shown.
"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
and
"I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>The following was written and posted by his brother.
You've shown all that to him before and, like then, you
unethically left out my brother's full retraction, so try
something else, you stupid bitch. http://tinyurl.com/5lbsn
pearl
> >'Bullies
>
> .. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
> you would not be bullied in the first place,
Admission that you're a bully. Bullies are weak. That's why
you abuse those you perceive as being weaker than yourself.
We know you blackmailed that 'retraction' out your brother.
We all see through you, derek. Go down more pain med's.
Rupert
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 24, 9:46 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> >> >> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>
> >> >> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
> >> >> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
> >> >> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
> >> >> years.
>
> >> >I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>
> >> Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
> >> explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
> >> your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
> >> explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
> >> satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
> >> further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
> >> want to understand it.
>
> >> >You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>
> >> Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>
> >> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
> >> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
> >> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
>
> >> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
>
> >Yup.
>
> Well, what else could I possibly expect from a psycho, eh?
>
> >since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
> >health history
>
> But that's what you are, rupie: a psycho,
>
> "I need an antipsychotic medication to function properly."
>
> and if you're offended by what you are, then so be it. Maybe,
> if you ever experience a few moments of clarity, you may
> realise that that's why I can never take you seriously. What
> on Earth can I or anyone possibly gain by trying to discuss
>
> - Show quoted text -
The word "psycho" is a popular term which can be used as an
abbreviation for "psychotic" or "psychopath", which are two very
different things. I am not psychotic at the moment. I am a person who
was born with a vulnerability to psychosis, through no fault of my
own, probably partly due to the fact that I was deprived of oxygen at
birth. I have experienced two psychotic episodes. The last one was six
years ago. Since then I have been in excellent mental health and have
been functioning at a high level, however I need to continue taking
medication in order to avoid a relapse. I would not be offended by you
pointing out any of these facts. I have chosen to be frank about them
and I see no reason why they are any sort of cause for shame or
embarrassment.
If you were to call someone who was born with cerebral palsy through
no fault of their own a "spastic", as a way of denigrating them, when
you yourself have presumably had the good fortune not to be born with
cerebral palsy, you would be giving a literally correct description of
their condition, but you would still be a moral toad.
About 3 in 100 people experience at least one psychotic episode, and
quite a high proportion of the population experience some form of
mental illness at some stage in their lives. In my view, it's very
unfortunate that there is so much stigma attached to it and I support
efforts to try to overcome this. It is very bigoted, small-minded, and
ignorant of you to suggest that no-one has anything to gain from
discussing ethics with someone who has a mental health history. That
is an incredibly ignorant and stupid form of prejudice akin to
racism.
If you believe that you have nothing to gain from discussing ethics
with me you probably should not bother replying to my posts. I don't
think many people find your replies to my posts particularly
insightful or edifying. I admit that it is foolish on my part to
bother replying to your replies, I should not waste my time having
conversation with such an ignorant and stupid toad.
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 24, 9:46 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> >> >> >> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>
> >> >> >> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
> >> >> >> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
> >> >> >> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
> >> >> >> years.
>
> >> >> >I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>
> >> >> Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
> >> >> explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
> >> >> your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
> >> >> explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
> >> >> satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
> >> >> further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
> >> >> want to understand it.
>
> >> >> >You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>
> >> >> Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>
> >> >> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
> >> >> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
> >> >> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
>
> >> >> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
>
> >> >Yup.
>
> >> Well, what else could I possibly expect from a psycho, eh?
>
> >> >since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
> >> >health history
>
> >> But that's what you are, rupie: a psycho,
>
> >> "I need an antipsychotic medication to function properly."
>
> >> and if you're offended by what you are, then so be it. Maybe,
> >> if you ever experience a few moments of clarity, you may
> >> realise that that's why I can never take you seriously. What
> >> on Earth can I or anyone possibly gain by trying to discuss
> >> ethics with a psycho?
>
> >'Bullies
>
> .. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
> you would not be bullied in the first place, you stupid
> whore.
>
> >Rupert: if you've not yet looked at this resource, please do
> >it now; you will find an *exact* description of these types.
>
> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>
> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
> rupie is not an animal
> rights advocate, as I've shown.
>
As I myself have openly said for some years now.
> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> might be a bit misleading."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
> and
>
> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> Rupert 3 Aug 2008http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
> >The following was written and posted by his brother.
>
> You've shown all that to him before and, like then, you
> unethically left out my brother's full retraction, so try
> something else, you stupid bitch.http://tinyurl.com/5lbsn
The use of the word "bitch" as an insult is both sexist and
speciesist. Tsk tsk, Derek.
Rupert
> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
> pretend to be animal rights advocates. rupie is not an animal
> rights advocate, as I've shown.
>
This use of "rupie" with a lower-case R, identical to Ball's usage, is
interesting. It could be that there is something to the conjecture
that you and Ball are the same person, or it could just be unconscious
emulation of your good pal Jonathan Ball.
You two have the dubious distinction of being the only people round
here to have sunk so low as to use someone's mental health history as
a way of denigrating them.
Rupert
> That
> is an incredibly ignorant and stupid form of prejudice akin to
> racism.
>
Just to clarify this point further.
Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
you're doing. It's a fairly safe bet you know next to nothing about
psychosis, have had no experience of it yourself, and have never read
any scientific research about it. Yet you're expressing your ignorant
prejudice that there's no point in discussing ethics with someone who
needs to take a medication in order to avoid having another psychosis.
That's a totally unfounded opinion you have about a subject you know
absolutely nothing about, and it reinforces the unfair prejudice that
mentally ill people experience in our society.
You're the moral equivalent of a racist scumbag. And also you actually
are a racist scumbag, because when Ball wrote a sentence in which he
called my girlfriend a "slant bitch", you expressed agreement instead
of pointing out that civilized people don't use racist slurs.
You're filth.
Derek
>"Derek" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9cs3b4diahqh1nu3i...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>..
>> >'Bullies
>>
>> .. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
>> you would not be bullied in the first place,
>
>Admission that you're a bully.
I certainly can and do bully, yes.
>Bullies are weak.
No, they are strong and dominate their weaker victims.
Every time you whiff off whining "bully" you declare
that you and your position is the weaker and is being
dominated by the person you're running from. I've never
been bullied or even felt like I've been bullied.
Derek
>On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>>
>> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
>> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>
>I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
and
"I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
as an ARA, just like I know you won't acknowledge the
change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
that of an animal welfarist. I know because I'm dealing
with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
past. You see, rupie, this is why I can't ever take you
seriously. Even when faced with your own quotes admitting
that "[You] used to call [your]self an "animal rights advocate",
and admitting "that the label "animal rights advocate" [was]
misleading", you still lie when pushed by writing stupid
things like you did just now; "I have not fraudulently
pretended to be an animal rights advocate." Trying to talk
sense with a psycho like you is just as much a waste of
time as talking to Harrison who admits he's a drunk who
drinks more beer than water.
Derek
>>
>> >> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
>>
>> >Yup.
>>
>> Well, what else could I possibly expect from a psycho, eh?
>>
>> >since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
>> >health history
>>
>> But that's what you are, rupie: a psycho,
>>
>> "I need an antipsychotic medication to function properly."
>>
>> and if you're offended by what you are, then so be it. Maybe,
>> if you ever experience a few moments of clarity, you may
>> realise that that's why I can never take you seriously. What
>> on Earth can I or anyone possibly gain by trying to discuss
>> ethics with a psycho?
>
>abbreviation for "psychotic" or "psychopath", which are two very
>different things. I am not psychotic at the moment.
[despite these new medical breakthroughs, one must be aware
that conventional, older anti-psychotic drugs as well as
antipsychotic atypical drugs, all of them so far in existence, carry
the risk of some serious long term side effects. While the older,
more “typical” anti-psychotics like Thorazine and Haldol run a
greater chance of raising an issue than the newer ones, like
Risperdal, Seroquel and Abilify, the possibility for negative long
term effects exists. Patients need to be aware of what to look for
in order to catch these side effects before they become permanent
problems because the psychiatrist might not be able to pick up on
the symptoms during a 15 minute to hour long sessions once a
month or more often. And while most psychiatrists after prescribing
you a medication wouldn't dare proclaim it harmful in the long run,
the truth is they definitely could be.]
http://tinyurl.com/5vhrhd
I found that in less than a minute. You're a total fuck-up, rupie and
you probably don't even realise it. And you want ME to discuss
the ethics behind MY lifestyle choices with a psycho like YOU?
Forget it, psycho.
Rupert
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> [..]
> >> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> >> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>
> >> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
> >> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>
> >I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
>
> Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
> label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
>
> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> might be a bit misleading."
> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
No. That is not an admission of lying. At the time when I identified
myself as an animal rights advocate, which was many years ago, I was
sincere. I have since re-thought my position.
You have no evidence that I have been lying. You couldn't because I
have never lied in all the years I've been here. You ought not to
accuse others of lying without rational foundation for it.
> and
>
> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> Rupert 3 Aug 2008http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
Yes, that is correct. So what?
> I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
> as an ARA,
Of course I acknowledge that at one time I identified myself as an
animal rights advocate; I have already done so repeatedly. I do not
agree that it was a fraudulent charade, because it wasn't. You've got
no rational foundation for thinking it was and you shouldn't accuse
someone of lying without foundation.
> just like I know you won't acknowledge the
> change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
> that of an animal welfarist.
Of course I acknowledge that; I've already done so repeatedly.
However, the change took place many years ago; it's old news.
> I know
You don't know shit.
> because I'm dealing
> with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
> lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
> past.
You're not dealing with a psycho, and you're confusing the two
possible extensions of "psycho", "psychotic" and "psychopath". They
are very different things. Psychopaths are chronic liars, yes. People
who are psychotic are not. People who are psychotic have the same
moral code as everyone else, it is just that they have problems with
forming reliable beliefs about reality. Since amateur psychiatric
diagnosis seems to be all the rage around here perhaps we should
explore the possibility that you and Ball might be psychopaths.
I've never engaged in lies and deceit; I'm an extremely honest person
and when I come to the conclusion that someone has the better argument
I always forthrightly acknowledge it and announce a change in my
position. Acknowledging a change in position is not an admission of
lying. You really must be remarkably stupid if you can't see this.
I've been entertaining some doubts about your honesty lately, I must
say. You were once kind enough to say some nice things about my
contributions to this newsgroup by email a number of years ago, and
you knew my mental health history then, so obviously back then you
were not stupid enough to believe that it is not worthwhile to have a
discussion about ethics with someone who has a mental health history.
Perhaps you are not being entirely honest in currently expressing your
belief that this is so, perhaps you are just saying it in the hope
that it will be hurtful. And perhaps you are not really as confident
about the merits of your current arguments as you pretend to be. You
would certainly have to be remarkably stupid not to be aware of their
flaws. As for all that stuff your brother said; well, who knows?
You're certainly not being shy at the moment about the fact that you
deliberately try to bully people. The function of usenet discussion
ought not to be to prove yourself the "stronger" person or to squash
people who are "weaker". It ought to be to clarify the strengths and
weaknesses of various arguments and move closer to the truth.
> You see, rupie, this is why I can't ever take you
> seriously.
It may well be true that you don't take me seriously, but I'm not
heartbroken. My evaluation of your level of morality at the moment is
not high, and if you really believe in all this rubbish you spout my
estimation of your intelligence is not high either. There is really no
reason why I should concern myself with whether you take me seriously
or not.
> Even when faced with your own quotes admitting
> that "[You] used to call [your]self an "animal rights advocate",
> and admitting "that the label "animal rights advocate" [was]
> misleading", you still lie when pushed by writing stupid
> things like you did just now; "I have not fraudulently
> pretended to be an animal rights advocate."
It's not stupid. It's the truth, and it requires stupidity not to see
that it is perfectly consistent with the quotes you have presented.
> Trying to talk
> sense with a psycho like you is just as much a waste of
> time as talking to Harrison who admits he's a drunk who
> drinks more beer than water.
Well, I'm afraid not, my mental health condition is a red herring and
it is you who are displaying remarkable stupidity, assuming that you
actually are arguing in good faith and not just trolling and trying to
be annoying. But if you genuinely believe that it's a waste of time,
then what's the point? What's the motivation? You believe that you are
holding the upper hand in a debate with someone who's psychotic and
you get gratification from contemplating this? Not exactly admirable,
is it?
It's also not very smart to think you've got a leg to stand on. You
quite patently don't have the slightest evidence that I've ever been
lying. That's because I never have.
Derek
>Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
>correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
>to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
>you're doing.
No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
contact with reality".
[Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
"When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
buses, and so forth."
Rupert 31 July 2007
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e217f9c83
You're certifiable, and you want ME to take YOU seriously
and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
outa here, psycho.
Rupert
You really are a bit weird, Derek. What's your point? I'm well aware
of the risks in taking the new atypical antipsychotics, I've discussed
it with my doctor many times. Drug companies always take great pains
to list all the known side-effects on the websites, they have to to
avoid litigation. (They also do toxicity tests on animals in the
initial research in order to avoid litigaton, which is unnecessary and
unfortunate.) Causing psychotic symptoms is not one of the undesirable
side-effects, however there is approximately a 1% risk of tardive
dyskinesia if you use an atypical antipsychotic. Tardive dykinesia is
the most serious possible side-effect and that is most likely what
that quote is talking about. I think that's the risk for an entire
lifetime, I'm not sure.
Do you not think that, since I've been taking this medication for six
years, I would have done a bit of research about the side-effect
profile of the stuff I am using and would know a bit more about it
than you? You acknowledge that you just found that with a quick Google
search just now, and that you do not really have the foggiest clue
what you are talking about. Is it not a bit lame?
If you genuinely believe that you've correctly diagnosed psychotic
symptoms in me, then first of all you're a fool, but secondly your
conduct is unconscionable. It's unconscionable to debate with someone
who has psychosis as if they were an ordinary person, and try to score
points with them and try to bully them, as you openly acknowledge
trying to do. The only moral course of action would be to say "You are
not well enough to participate in this forum at the moment, please go
and seek treatment." Or at least, so any decent person would realise
if you had the slightest understanding of what psychosis actually is.
However, it's okay, because as it happens I'm perfectly well and
perfectly able to hold my own in any sort of debate with you, and you
couldn't bully me no matter how hard you tried. It is just that I felt
a certain sense of sadness at first - "Oh, I always thought that Derek
was an essentially decent person" - but if you want to move to the
kind of relationship I have with Ball then that is fine, and you can
take joy in your delusion that you are winning.
It's also unconscionable to use the term "psycho" as a term of abuse
to someone who has a mental health history. It is morally despicable
and you are only degrading yourself. It is like using the term
"nigger" or "spastic" as a term of abuse. Prior to your recent posts,
Ball was the only one who had sunk to such depths. You have now joined
the club.
I couldn't care less whether you can be bothered trying to defend your
ethical views to me, I politely invited you to do so and I was willing
to consider what you had to say with an open mind, but I must confess
I'm not fascinated, I wasn't really expecting anything you had to
offer to be all that edifying. I'll get by just fine thinking through
these issues by myself and reading stuff written by professional
philosophers and academics.
You're saying that the fact that I have a mental health history is
somehow a reason why it's beneath you to defend your ethical views to
me, is that it? You really are a disgusting toad, you know that?
Why do people like you and Ball spend so much time hanging around
dietary ethics newsgroups when you obviously have no interest in
defending any sort of position in dietary ethics, if indeed you ever
did? We know the answer, you have told us: because you get
gratification from your belief that you are doing a good job of
bullying people.
It's all quite sad, really. You are a senseless waste of space. You
ought to stop wasting bandwidth and disgracing yourself in public.
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:14:30 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >..
> >> >'Bullies
>
> >> .. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
> >> you would not be bullied in the first place,
>
> >Admission that you're a bully.
>
> I certainly can and do bully, yes.
>
> >Bullies are weak.
>
> No, they are strong and dominate their weaker victims.
> Every time you whiff off whining "bully" you declare
> that you and your position is the weaker and is being
> dominated by the person you're running from. I've never
> been bullied or even felt like I've been bullied.
Having the stronger argument is not the same as bullying. You can have
the stronger argument without bullying, and you can bully without
having the stronger argument. (You can also attempt to bully without
having the stronger argument and delude yourself into thinking that
you are successfully bullying, as is evidently the case with you at
the moment.) Decent people put forward arguments in the spirit of
seeking out the truth, not for the sake of "beating up on people" or
"being strong and dominating their weaker victims". You haven't put
forward an argument about animal ethics here in years. It is now quite
clear that your main motivation for being here is a delusional sense
of gratification that you are successfully bullying people. It is
utterly disgusting and pathetic. Your best course of action would be
to leave hanging your head in shame. Or alternatively, you could
reform yourself into a decent person. However, neither is likely to
happen.
Derek
>On Aug 25, 7:12 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>> >> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>>
>> >> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
>> >> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>>
>> >I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
>>
>> Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
>> label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
>>
>> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
>> might be a bit misleading."
>> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
>No. That is not an admission of lying.
Yes, it most certainly is, psycho.
>> and
>>
>> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
>> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
>> Rupert 3 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
>Yes, that is correct. So what?
So you are lying when declaring that there has been no
change in your position, psycho, that's what.
>> I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
>> as an ARA,
>
>Of course I acknowledge that at one time I identified myself as an
>animal rights advocate
Then you've been lying while denying that there has
been a change in your position. Thanks again for
admitting it, but you'll no doubt deny that you've
admitted it in a few minutes.
>> just like I know you won't acknowledge the
>> change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
>> that of an animal welfarist. I know because I'm dealing
>> with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
>> lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
>> past.
>
>You're not dealing with a psycho
Yes I am, psycho.
"When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
buses, and so forth."
Rupert 31 July 2007
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e217f9c83
>> You see, rupie, this is why I can't ever take you
>> seriously.
>
>It may well be true that you don't take me seriously, but I'm not
>heartbroken.
Of course, my deluded friend. You'll find some way to alter
the reality around you to stop that from ever happening.
>> Even when faced with your own quotes admitting
>> that "[You] used to call [your]self an "animal rights advocate",
>> and admitting "that the label "animal rights advocate" [was]
>> misleading", you still lie when pushed by writing stupid
>> things like you did just now; "I have not fraudulently
>> pretended to be an animal rights advocate." Trying to talk
>> sense with a psycho like you is just as much a waste of
>> time as talking to Harrison who admits he's a drunk who
>> drinks more beer than water.
>
>Well, I'm afraid not, my mental health condition is a red herring
No, psycho, it isn't.
Derek
>On Aug 25, 6:50 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:14:30 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >"Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9cs3b4diahqh1nu3i...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >..
>> >> >'Bullies
>>
>> >> .. beat up on the weak. If you or your position was strong
>> >> you would not be bullied in the first place,
>>
>> >Admission that you're a bully.
>>
>> I certainly can and do bully, yes.
>>
>> >Bullies are weak.
>>
>> No, they are strong and dominate their weaker victims.
>> Every time you whiff off whining "bully" you declare
>> that you and your position is the weaker and is being
>> dominated by the person you're running from. I've never
>> been bullied or even felt like I've been bullied.
>
>Having the stronger argument is not the same as bullying.
A stronger argument can never be bullied by a weaker one.
A stronger person can never be bullied by a weaker one.
When Lesley whiffs off crying "bully" she concedes that she
and her argument is the weaker.
Rupert
No, she does not. She judges that Ball and you are bullies without
having the stronger argument, and that is a perfectly consistent
position to take.
When you repeatedly use "psycho" as a derogatory label towards me in
the hope that I will become irritated by it or possibly even upset
(that would make you joyful, wouldn't it), that is an attempt at
bullying, and it is certainly nothing to do with the merits of your
argument. Nor does it reflect how "strong" you are as a person; it
marks you as a weak, small-minded, foolish, and generally rather
pathetic person, on a par with someone who mocks someone who has the
misfortune to have cerebral palsy. This would remain true even if I
were not such a rational and level-headed person and allowed myself to
become upset by it.
Derek
Yes, she does, psycho.
Derek
Says the psycho who wrote,
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 7:12 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> >> >> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>
> >> >> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
> >> >> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>
> >> >I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
>
> >> Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
> >> label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
>
> >> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> >> might be a bit misleading."
> >> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
> >No. That is not an admission of lying.
>
> Yes, it most certainly is, psycho.
>
Your stupidity is quite phenomenal, and your use of "psycho" as a
derogatory term is unbelievably pitiful and morally disgusting.
> >> and
>
> >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
> >> Rupert 3 Aug 2008http://tinyurl.com/6kqnon
>
> >Yes, that is correct. So what?
>
> So you are lying when declaring that there has been no
> change in your position, psycho, that's what.
>
When I recently remarked that there has been no change in my position,
I was addressing the allegations made by you and Ball that my position
has changed recently. My position has not changed recently.
> >> I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
> >> as an ARA,
>
> >Of course I acknowledge that at one time I identified myself as an
> >animal rights advocate
>
> Then you've been lying while denying that there has
> been a change in your position. Thanks again for
> admitting it, but you'll no doubt deny that you've
> admitted it in a few minutes.
>
You have a hard time paying attention to the context of things, don't
you, Derek?
What I have recently claimed is that there has been no *recent* change
in my position.
> >> just like I know you won't acknowledge the
> >> change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
> >> that of an animal welfarist. I know because I'm dealing
> >> with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
> >> lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
> >> past.
>
> >You're not dealing with a psycho
>
> Yes I am, psycho.
>
You are pitiful.
> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> buses, and so forth."
> Rupert 31 July 2007
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
What's the point of bringing this quotation up? To make fun of me on
the basis of my frank disclosure of the nature of my experience? What
an incredibly disgusting worm you are.
Yes, Derek, that is what happened, over six years ago now. I don't see
any reason to feel embarrassed or ashamed about it, it is just a
misfortune that I had; I would have thought the appropriate response
would be sympathy, not mockery. It remains the case that you are not
dealing with a psycho. "Psycho" is a word used by ignorant, ill-
educated people who don't know the difference between a psychotic and
a psychopath and who know next to nothing about mental illness, such
as yourself. I am certainly not a psychopath, and I have not been
psychotic for six years now. I am extremely well at the moment. It
remains the case that I have a vulnerability which I need to manage
with medication.
It may be that one day you yourself will become psychotic, although
that is unlikely given that you are old enough to have adult children;
it usually first strikes people in their twenties. Or it may be that
one day one of your children will become psychotic, and you will need
to care for them while they recover. You will then have to watch them
endure the same stigma and small-minded, ignorant prejudice that I
have to put up with from halfwits such as yourself, and you then might
come to have more clarity about the moral status of your current
behaviour. There would be a certain poetic justice in that. However, I
certainly would not wish it to happen.
I am not a psycho and I am not the least bit ashamed of my mental
health history. You are a pitiful disgusting worm.
> >> You see, rupie, this is why I can't ever take you
> >> seriously.
>
> >It may well be true that you don't take me seriously, but I'm not
> >heartbroken.
>
> Of course, my deluded friend. You'll find some way to alter
> the reality around you to stop that from ever happening.
>
You're saying I'm not in touch with the reality? I don't think so, I
think my insight into how you feel about me is pretty good. It's just
that I'm not especially troubled by it because I don't regard as a
person of any particular account. You're just a stranger I chat with
on the internet who has no power over me and for whom I don't have
very much respect, to put it mildly. Why would I be bothered by what
you think of me or whether you take me seriously? I have a friend
who's a professional philosopher who takes me seriously. The director
of laboratory services at the University of Sydney takes me seriously
and is indeed willing to arrange for me to be paid to discuss animal
ethics. Why would I care what you think?
> >> Even when faced with your own quotes admitting
> >> that "[You] used to call [your]self an "animal rights advocate",
> >> and admitting "that the label "animal rights advocate" [was]
> >> misleading", you still lie when pushed by writing stupid
> >> things like you did just now; "I have not fraudulently
> >> pretended to be an animal rights advocate." Trying to talk
> >> sense with a psycho like you is just as much a waste of
> >> time as talking to Harrison who admits he's a drunk who
> >> drinks more beer than water.
>
> >Well, I'm afraid not, my mental health condition is a red herring
>
> No, psycho, it isn't.
It is because it doesn't in any way affect what goes on here. I'm
perfectly well, it's just that I need to take medication in order to
avoid having a relapse. You're deluded to think that you have the
upper hand in the argument and it's because I have a mental health
condition. You don't have the upper hand in the argument, and my
mental health condition has no bearing on what goes on here. (However,
if your delusion were correct then your behaviour would of course be
unconscionable, so the fact that you believe in your delusion reflects
very poorly on you.) You're not competent to diagnose mental health
issues; you can't use your lack of respect for a person's intelligence
or integrity, or an aspect of their character or behaviour you
dislike, as the basis for a psychiatric diagnosis.
My honesty is unimpeachable. You've never identified a lie I've told.
You can't, because I've never told a lie here.
You've lost and all you're achieving at the moment is disgracing
yourself in public by letting the world see how morally disgusting you
are, like Ball.
You ought to move on.
Rupert
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
> >correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
> >to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
> >you're doing.
>
> No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
> a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
> contact with reality".
>
It is true that if I were actually suffering from psychosis then it
would not be profitable to try to discuss ethics with me. If you
really are so stupid as to believe that you have successfully
diagnosed symptoms of psychosis in me, then the morally decent thing
to do, as I believe I've observed a few times by now, is to say
"Rupert, you are too unwell to participate here, please go and seek
treatment." Doing anything else marks you as a despicable moral toad,
as I have pointed out a number of times.
However, you were saying that it is not profitable to discuss ethics
with me just because I have a mental health history, or at least that
is how I interpreted you. That is indeed morally equivalent to what I
said it was morally equivalent to.
Perhaps a better analogy would be this. It is as if you were a racist
scumbag who was talking to someone of African-American descent, and,
because of your ignorant and ill-founded views about the correlation
of race with intelligence, deluded yourself into thinking that you
were getting further confirmation of these views by observing poor
intelligence in your correspondent, and on those grounds said "Why
would I waste time talking about ethics with a nigger?"
I am not currently experiencing disorganised thinking or loss of
contact with reality; if I were you'd know about it, believe you me.
You have no real concept of what would be involved in that. You are
deluding yourself into thinking that you are competent to diagnose
psychiatric symptoms in people on the basis of a lack of respect for
their intelligence, because of your ignorance and prejudice about
people with mental illness, and then using this as a basis for
denigrating me in a thoroughly morally disgusting fashion. You are
revealing yourself to be a moral toad.
Also your lack of respect for my intelligence is ill-founded, actually
it is you who is being quite phenomenally stupid, but that is a
different issue.
> [Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
> described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
> suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
>
> People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
> delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
> disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
> or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
> and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
>
Yep, that's right. That's what it is. And it's quite clear that I
don't currently have it because if I did I wouldn't be able to hold
down a full-time job and work on a Ph.D. thesis, nor indeed to wax so
eloquent about what a cretin and moral toad you are.
> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> buses, and so forth."
> Rupert 31 July 2007
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
Yes, Derek, that is correct, that is what happened in 2001 and 2002;
it has no bearing on what is going on now, or if you think it does
then the only moral course of action would be to stop debating with me
and ask me to stop participating here and seek treatment. So what is
your point? I can't believe how disgusting you are to try to use that
quotation against me. It really is just about the lowest behaviour
imaginable.
> You're certifiable,
No, I'm not, Derek. My doctors say I'm doing very well. Any sensible
non-bigoted person can see I'm perfectly fine.
> and you want ME to take YOU seriously
> and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
> outa here, psycho.
To repeat myself, I couldn't possibly care less whether you take me
seriously or bother to discuss your views about animal ethics with me,
although it is rather comical that you have spent so many years
participating in an animal ethics forum while obviously having no
interest in discussing animal ethics.
Basically what you're saying is that, because I had two psychotic
episodes six years ago, you're entitled to feel affronted that I
politely invited you to have a civilized conversation about your views
about dietary ethics. The main effect of this on decent people is
going to be to induce an urge to vomit.
I'm afraid I'm most likely not going to get the fuck out of here. But
you would if you had any self-respect.
Rupert
You are a pitiful pointless waste of space.
Derek
>On Aug 25, 8:51 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 25, 7:12 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
>> >> >> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
>> >> >> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
>> >>
>> >> Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
>> >> label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
>> >>
>> >> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
>> >> might be a bit misleading."
>> >> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>> >
>> >No. That is not an admission of lying.
>>
>> Yes, it most certainly is, psycho.
>>
>> >>
>> >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
>> >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
>>
>> >Yes, that is correct. So what?
>>
>> So you are lying when declaring that there has been no
>> change in your position, psycho, that's what.
>
>When I recently remarked that there has been no change in my position,
>I was addressing the allegations made by you and Ball that my position
>has changed recently. My position has not changed recently.
It changes back and forth all the time, psycho. Take a look
at your past and recent quotes where you refer to yourself
as an animal rights advocate.
"I believe that animals have the right not to be
killed unnecessarily"
Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/63dugz
You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
"... it would not be that misleading to refer to
myself as an "animal rights advocate".
Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
but
"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
"I have never made any misleading statements about
what I believe."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
You're all over the place, psycho, and when asked
to clarify your ever-changing position you whiff off
instead and tell your enquirers that it is they and not
you who is confused.
>> >> I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
>> >> as an ARA,
>>
>> >Of course I acknowledge that at one time I identified myself as an
>> >animal rights advocate
>>
>> Then you've been lying while denying that there has
>> been a change in your position. Thanks again for
>> admitting it, but you'll no doubt deny that you've
>> admitted it in a few minutes.
>
>You have a hard time paying attention to the context of things, don't
>you, Derek?
Not at all, psycho. In fact, it's because I pay attention that
you're in the position you're in right now.
>> >> just like I know you won't acknowledge the
>> >> change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
>> >> that of an animal welfarist. I know because I'm dealing
>> >> with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
>> >> lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
>> >> past.
>> >
>> >You're not dealing with a psycho
>>
>> Yes I am, psycho.
>>
>> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
>> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
>> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
>> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
>> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
>> buses, and so forth."
>> Rupert 31 July 2007
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>>
>
>What's the point of bringing this quotation up?
To show that you're a self-confessed psycho who cannot
be taken seriously. There's nothing to be gained by talking
to the mentally deranged people like you, or the drunks
like Harrison, and you must respect my right to reject your
calls for a discussion concerning the ethics behind my
lifestyle choices.
Rupert
While I am not a psycho, I am someone who had two psychotic episodes
six years ago and has a vulnerability to psychosis, it is indeed true
that I wrote that and that is indeed what happened back in 2001 and
2002. Things like that happen to about 3 in 100 people at some stage
in their lives, it is just a misfortune, and I do not see the
slightest reason why I should feel in any way embarrassed. Anyone who
would try to use that quotation against me is a thoroughly despicable
person, as any decent person can clearly see.
When I say that you are a bit weird I do not wish to suggest that no-
one would say the same thing about myself; many, no doubt, would
regard me as a bit weird, although I think I have become a bit less so
as I got older. I am not troubled by that. The point is that your use
of that quotation about the side-effects of atypical antipsychotics in
an attempt to strengthen your case that I might be experiencing
psychotic symptoms at the moment was lame and stupid and underlined
your complete ignorance of what you are talking about. Of course you
snipped all that and tried to distract attention from that issue by
scoring cheap shots.
Derek
>On Aug 25, 8:37 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
>> >correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
>> >to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
>> >you're doing.
>>
>> No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
>> a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
>> contact with reality".
>
>It is true that if I were actually suffering from psychosis then it
>would not be profitable to try to discuss ethics with me.
Then you must respect my right to reject your demands
that I discuss ethics with you, psycho.
>I am not currently experiencing disorganised thinking or loss of
>contact with reality
You cannot guarantee that, psycho, and because you
repeatedly fail to see that you've lied about your AR
position while the quote I bring here show that you have,
I've every reason to doubt that you're as well as you
think you are.
>> [Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
>> described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
>> suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
>>
>> People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
>> delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
>> disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
>> or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
>> and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
>
>Yep, that's right. That's what it is.
>>
>> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
>> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
>> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
>> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
>> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
>> buses, and so forth."
>> Rupert 31 July 2007
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
>Yes, Derek, that is correct, that is what happened in 2001 and 2002;
>it has no bearing on what is going on now
You, being psycho and all that aren't equipped to guarantee
anything, psycho.
>> You're certifiable,
>
>No, I'm not
Yes, you are.
>> and you want ME to take YOU seriously
>> and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
>> outa here, psycho.
>
>To repeat myself
Yes, you probably do a lot of that while you "gradually
spiral out of control into ideas about being spied upon with
hidden cameras, and having messages broadcast to [you]
Derek
Ha ha ha. And when would that be? How would you know?
Derek
You think John Von Neumann could ever be bullied?
Now there's someone who knows something about
the axiomatization of mathematical models.
Rupert
I do not know whether John von Neumann could have been bullied; he was
quite a good mathematician, yes. To return to the original topic of
conversation, accusing someone of bullying is very obviously not a
concession that your argument is weaker; only a pitiful deluded loon
would think that.
Derek
>On Aug 25, 10:05 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You think John Von Neumann could ever be bullied?
>> Now there's someone who knows something about
>> the axiomatization of mathematical models.
>
>I do not know whether John von Neumann could have been bullied; he was
>quite a good mathematician, yes.
He was a giant and could never be bullied, and you know it.
What are you doing posting from France, anyway?
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:19:08 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 8:51 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 25, 7:12 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:18:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >Ever since Derek's been in this group he's attacked (to destroy)
> >> >> >> >pro- AR and veg*n advocates, just like he has to you and me.
>
> >> >> >> Nope. What I do is uncover frauds like you and rupie who
> >> >> >> pretend to be animal rights advocates.
>
> >> >> >I have not fraudulently pretended to be an animal rights advocate.
>
> >> >> Yes you have, rupie, and you've admitted that the AR
> >> >> label you gave yourself was a lie by writing,
>
> >> >> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> >> >> might be a bit misleading."
> >> >> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
> >> >No. That is not an admission of lying.
>
> >> Yes, it most certainly is, psycho.
>
> >> >> and
>
> >> >> "I used to call myself an "animal rights advocate"
> >> >> and these days refer to myself as a "new welfarist.""
>
> >> >Yes, that is correct. So what?
>
> >> So you are lying when declaring that there has been no
> >> change in your position, psycho, that's what.
>
> >When I recently remarked that there has been no change in my position,
> >I was addressing the allegations made by you and Ball that my position
> >has changed recently. My position has not changed recently.
>
> It changes back and forth all the time, psycho. Take a look
> at your past and recent quotes where you refer to yourself
> as an animal rights advocate.
>
> "I believe that animals have the right not to be
> killed unnecessarily"
> Rupert 18 April 2006 http://tinyurl.com/63dugz
>
Yes, that is true, I do believe that and have always believed that and
that is consistent with me not being an animal rights advocate.
> You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
> even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
> rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
>
No, that is not true, I have not referred to myself as an animal
rights advocate in recent memory.
> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
> Rupert 7 August 2008http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
Yes, I did recently make that statement. It is true and consistent
with everything else I have said. However, I also acknowledge that it
would be *somewhat* misleading and for that reason have refrained from
referring to myself as such in order not to offend your delicate
sensibilities. As a matter of fact I have not referred to myself as an
animal rights advocate for some years.
> but
>
> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> might be a bit misleading."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
That's right. Those two statements are consistent. Both are correct.
> and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
>
> "I have never made any misleading statements about
> what I believe."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
>
This statement is correct.
> You're all over the place, psycho,
Stupid digusting toad.
> and when asked
> to clarify your ever-changing position you whiff off
> instead and tell your enquirers that it is they and not
> you who is confused.
>
No, that's not true. I'm not all over the place, my position has
remained constant in its broad outline, with a few minor changes in
details, over six years. I do not "whiff off" in response to requests
to clarify it. I've gone to some trouble to try to make it clear but
it obviously hasn't worked out very well. I'll keep trying, but later,
after I've handed in my thesis.
> >> >> I know you won't acknowledge your fraudulent charade
> >> >> as an ARA,
>
> >> >Of course I acknowledge that at one time I identified myself as an
> >> >animal rights advocate
>
> >> Then you've been lying while denying that there has
> >> been a change in your position. Thanks again for
> >> admitting it, but you'll no doubt deny that you've
> >> admitted it in a few minutes.
>
> >You have a hard time paying attention to the context of things, don't
> >you, Derek?
>
> Not at all, psycho. In fact, it's because I pay attention that
> you're in the position you're in right now.
>
The position of thoroughly demonstrating what a disgusting moral toad
you are and easily and decisively refuting all your allegations of
lying, you mean?
>
>
> >> >> just like I know you won't acknowledge the
> >> >> change in your position from an animal rights advocate to
> >> >> that of an animal welfarist. I know because I'm dealing
> >> >> with a psycho who isn't well enough to acknowledge his
> >> >> lies and deceit, even if you have acknowledged it in the
> >> >> past.
>
> >> >You're not dealing with a psycho
>
> >> Yes I am, psycho.
>
> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> >> buses, and so forth."
> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
> >What's the point of bringing this quotation up?
>
> To show that you're a self-confessed psycho who cannot
> be taken seriously.
I am not a self-confessed psycho. "Psycho" does not mean anything in
particular, it is a more or less meaningless label which is used by
ignorant ill-educated people who do not know the different between a
psychotic and a psychopath and know pretty much nothing about mental
illness. I am not currently psychotic or mentally ill. I am someone
who has a vulnerability to psychosis and has to take medication to
manage that vulnerability. I experienced two psychotic episodes in
2001 and 2002, during which I did indeed have experiences of the kind
discussed in that quotation. That is just an undeserved misfortune due
to something going wrong with my brain chemistry, and is no reason at
all why I should feel the least bit embarrassed or ashamed, or why I
should not be taken seriously now.
Your attempt to use that quotation against me shows you to be a
thoroughly ignorant, bigoted, morally disgusting toad. All decent
readers of this newsgroup will see that very clearly.
> There's nothing to be gained by talking
> to the mentally deranged people like you,
I am not mentally deranged, but if you think there's nothing to be
gained by talking to me then why are you spending so much time doing
it at the moment?
> or the drunks
> like Harrison, and you must respect my right to reject your
> calls for a discussion concerning the ethics behind my
> lifestyle choices.
Of course I respect that right. I also respect your right to publicly
demonstrate yourself to be a morally disgusting toad. I don't know
what gave you the idea that I don't respect your right to do whatever
you damn well please on this newsgroup. I've repeatedly said that I
couldn't care less what you do.
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 8:37 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
> >> >correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
> >> >to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
> >> >you're doing.
>
> >> No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
> >> a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
> >> contact with reality".
>
> >It is true that if I were actually suffering from psychosis then it
> >would not be profitable to try to discuss ethics with me.
>
> Then you must respect my right to reject your demands
> that I discuss ethics with you, psycho.
>
As discussed elsewhere, I don't know what gave you the idea that I
don't respect that right, however the sentence to which you are
replying has no bearing on the matter. I am not experiencing
psychosis. But you have a perfect right to do whatever the hell you
want on this newsgroup, including publicly disgracing yourself and
showing yourself to be a morally disgusting toad, regardless of
whether I am experiencing psychosis at the moment or not.
> >I am not currently experiencing disorganised thinking or loss of
> >contact with reality
>
> You cannot guarantee that, psycho,
Yes, I can. I know it just as well as you know the same thing about
yourself. If you can guarantee it, so can I. We may perhaps grant that
in some sense I cannot guarantee it, but in that case you should
concede that you cannot guarantee the same thing about yourself
either. There are no stronger grounds for thinking I am unwell than
for thinking you are unwell.
> and because you
> repeatedly fail to see that you've lied about your AR
> position while the quote I bring here show that you have,
> I've every reason to doubt that you're as well as you
> think you are.
>
No, you don't have the slightest reason to doubt that I'm well. Having
poor respect for a person's intelligence is not a good reason for
giving them a psychiatric diagnosis. Also, your lack of respect for my
intelligence is ill-founded. It is you who are being phenomenally
stupid. Your quotations manifestly do not demonstrate that I've been
lying, and I've made that very clear. It's as clear as day to anyone
with a speck of good sense. However, I won't give you an amateur
psychiatric diagnosis based on your inability to see it, I'll just
conclude that you're a remarkable fool.
>
>
> >> [Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
> >> described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
> >> suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
>
> >> People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
> >> delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
> >> disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
> >> or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
> >> and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
>
> >Yep, that's right. That's what it is.
>
> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> >> buses, and so forth."
> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
> >Yes, Derek, that is correct, that is what happened in 2001 and 2002;
> >it has no bearing on what is going on now
>
> You, being psycho and all that aren't equipped to guarantee
> anything, psycho.
>
That's a circular argument, Derek. I'm perfectly well and I'm
perfectly competent to recognise that I'm well, and by the way my
doctors and those who interact with me in real life will back me up
there. I have no interest in your view that I am unwell, your opinion
on the matter is worthless. But if you genuinely believe that I'm
unwell, then of course your current conduct is unconscionable. Having
a history of psychosis, or actually being psychotic, is nothing to be
ashamed of, it is an undeserved misfortune. Trying to denigrate
someone on the basis of having a history of psychosis, or actually
being psychotic, is most certainly something to be very ashamed of. It
marks you as a morally disgusting toad and you only succeed in
degrading yourself. This would remain the case even if we were to
assume for the sake of argument that I'm to any degree unwell.
> >> You're certifiable,
>
> >No, I'm not
>
> Yes, you are.
>
The people who get to decide whether I'm certifiable are by definition
the doctors, Derek, not you, and they say that I'm well. So I'm afraid
you're wrong.
> >> and you want ME to take YOU seriously
> >> and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
> >> outa here, psycho.
>
> >To repeat myself
>
> Yes, you probably do a lot of that while you "gradually
> spiral out of control into ideas about being spied upon with
> hidden cameras, and having messages broadcast to [you]
> through ads on buses, and so forth."
Words cannot convey my unbelievable contempt for you on account of
your repeated attempt to use that passage to denigrate me. That
passage is just a frank discussion of my experience. The fact that I
had the experience is nothing to be ashamed of; it is an undeserved
misfortune that I had because something went wrong with my brain
chemistry. I realise that some people feel uncomfortable with
discussing such experiences but I was talking with Ball at the time
and he obviously wanted to talk about my mental health, so I thought
I'd explain to him what psychosis actually was since he clearly hasn't
got a clue. I have not had any delusions for the last six years. In
the last five years I've done original mathematical research and am
currently writing it up. I've held down a full-time teaching job for
the last year. Also, I'm currently eloquently and rationally
discussing how your claims about my mental health are without rational
foundation, and how if they had rational foundation then your current
conduct would show you to be a despicable moral toad, even more so
than it already does. Such things are not possible when you are
experiencing full-blown psychosis.
You are a worthless toad. I don't know what you imagine you're
achieving by repeatedly attempting to use that passage to denigrate
me. Certainly, the main effect it has on my perception of the
situation is to increase my confidence in my enormous moral
superiority over you and my confidence that all decent readers of this
newsgroup, who are the only ones I care about, will feel the utmost
disgust for you. That's certainly the effect it has on *my* perception
of the situation. But perhaps you believe it is helping you to achieve
some sane goal. Much good may it do you.
Derek
False. That above quote advocates the proposition
of animal rights.
>> You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
>> even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
>> rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
>
>No, that is not true, I have not referred to myself as an animal
>rights advocate in recent memory.
Your quote which refers to yourself as an animal rights
advocate below this line is only a few weeks old, psycho.
>> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
>> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
>> Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
>Yes, I did recently make that statement.
Then you cannot continue to lie by insisting you haven't
recently referred to yourself as an animal rights advocate.
>It is true and consistent with everything else I have said.
No, it's not consistent with your earlier quotes denying
a position which advocates animal rights, psycho.
>However, I also acknowledge that it would be *somewhat*
>misleading
No, it's a deliberate lie, and you know it but cannot face
acknowledging it.
>> but
>>
>> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
>> might be a bit misleading."
>> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
>That's right. Those two statements are consistent. Both are correct.
Man, you're really having a bad day today, eh, psycho?
Look at them again.
"... it would not be that misleading to refer to
myself as an "animal rights advocate".
Rupert 7 August 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
"I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
might be a bit misleading."
Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
They're as contradictory and as misleading as two
statements could possibly be, you psychotic liar.
>> and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
>>
>> "I have never made any misleading statements about
>> what I believe."
>> Rupert 29 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
>
>This statement is correct.
Only to a psychotic liar, maybe.
>> You're all over the place, psycho, and when asked
>> to clarify your ever-changing position you whiff off
>> instead and tell your enquirers that it is they and not
>> you who is confused.
>
>No, that's not true.
False, as has been shown clearly by your own quotes.
>> >> >You're not dealing with a psycho
>>
>> >> Yes I am, psycho.
>>
>> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
>> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
>> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
>> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
>> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
>> >> buses, and so forth."
>> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
>> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>>
>> >What's the point of bringing this quotation up?
>>
>> To show that you're a self-confessed psycho who cannot
>> be taken seriously.
>
>I am not a self-confessed psycho. "Psycho"
Your above quote demonstrates you are.
>> There's nothing to be gained by talking
>> to the mentally deranged people like you,
>
>I am not mentally deranged
You are, psycho. There's not a doubt in my mind.
>> or the drunks
>> like Harrison, and you must respect my right to reject your
>> calls for a discussion concerning the ethics behind my
>> lifestyle choices.
>
>Of course I respect that right.
Then we are done.
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 10:05 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [..]
> >> You think John Von Neumann could ever be bullied?
> >> Now there's someone who knows something about
> >> the axiomatization of mathematical models.
>
> >I do not know whether John von Neumann could have been bullied; he was
> >quite a good mathematician, yes.
>
> He was a giant and could never be bullied, and you know it.
He was a mathematical giant, that does not really have a bearing on
whether he could be bullied, but I grant you that it is quite likely
that he had good defences against bullying, most intelligent adults
do. Is there a point to this conversation?
> What are you doing posting from France, anyway?
I am posting from Shanghai but I am using a piece of software called
TOR (The Onion Router), which provides protection from censorship and
anonymity, and may make me appear to be posting from a different
location.
Rupert
When would it be? Not really clear on this question.
As discussed, the word "psycho" does not really mean anything in
particular, it is only used by people who are completely uneducated
about mental illness and don't know the difference between a psychotic
and a psychopath.
I am not psychotic at the moment. The last time I was psychotic was in
October 2002, if you are fascinated.
I know this in the same way that you know you are not psychotic. When
you are well you have insight into the fact that you are well, just as
when you are awake you know that you are awake (although when you are
dreaming you may not know that you are dreaming). There may perhaps be
some sense in which I cannot completley rule out the possibility that
I am psychotic, or that I am dreaming, but that is equally true of you
and everyone else. I have various good grounds for thinking I am not
psychotic, such as my ability to do mathematical research and write it
up, my ability to hold down a full-time job, my ability to eloquently
and rationally demonstrate what a worthless toad you are and how
lacking in rational foundation all your rubbish is, and the fact that
my doctors, my family, and my co-workers all believe that I am in good
health. You have no tangible grounds for thinking I am psychotic, you
are just making idle innuendo based on the fact that I have a mental
health history. The fact that I was psychotic six years ago is not a
very strong ground for thinking that I am psychotic now. You evaluate
my performance in debates on this newsgroup poorly; that evaluation is
ill-founded but even if it were not it would still be a poor reason
for making a psychiatric diagnosis. You are just insinuating that I am
psychotic for the hell of it, most likely even you know that there are
no rational grounds for it and are just trying (failing abysmally) to
get at me. It is quite morally disgusting.
You believe that I am psychotic and you find this to be an occasion
for laughter, is that correct? When you look in the mirror, Derek, are
you proud of who you see?
Derek
>On Aug 25, 9:55 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 25, 8:37 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
>> >> >correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
>> >> >to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
>> >> >you're doing.
>> >>
>> >> No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
>> >> a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
>> >> contact with reality".
>> >
>> >It is true that if I were actually suffering from psychosis then it
>> >would not be profitable to try to discuss ethics with me.
>>
>> Then you must respect my right to reject your demands
>> that I discuss ethics with you, psycho.
>
>As discussed elsewhere, I don't know what gave you the idea that I
>don't respect that right
I'm merely reminding you of it.
>> >I am not currently experiencing disorganised thinking or loss of
>> >contact with reality
>>
>> You cannot guarantee that, psycho,
>
>Yes, I can.
No, you cannot, psycho.
>> and because you
>> repeatedly fail to see that you've lied about your AR
>> position while the quote I bring here show that you have,
>> I've every reason to doubt that you're as well as you
>> think you are.
>
>No, you don't have the slightest reason to doubt that I'm well.
I have every reason to doubt your sanity, psycho.
>> >> [Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
>> >> described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
>> >> suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
>> >>
>> >> People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
>> >> delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
>> >> disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
>> >> or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
>> >> and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
>> >
>> >Yep, that's right. That's what it is.
>> >
>> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
>> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
>> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
>> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
>> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
>> >> buses, and so forth."
>> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
>> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>>
>> >Yes, Derek, that is correct, that is what happened in 2001 and 2002;
>> >it has no bearing on what is going on now
>>
>> You, being psycho and all that aren't equipped to guarantee
>> anything, psycho.
>
>That's a circular argument, Derek.
No, it is not. It's a statement of fact, not an argument.
>> >> You're certifiable,
>>
>> >No, I'm not
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>
>The people who get to decide whether I'm certifiable are by definition
>the doctors, Derek, not you, and they say that I'm well. So I'm afraid
>you're wrong.
False. I know a known psycho when I observe one, just
like I know a known drunk when I observe one, and I
don't need to be a doctor to make those correct
observations.
>> >> and you want ME to take YOU seriously
>> >> and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
>> >> outa here, psycho.
>> >
>> >To repeat myself
>>
>> Yes, you probably do a lot of that while you "gradually
>> spiral out of control into ideas about being spied upon with
>> hidden cameras, and having messages broadcast to [you]
>> through ads on buses, and so forth."
>
>Words cannot convey my unbelievable contempt for you
And what makes you believe I give a damn, psycho?
Derek
No, I don't think you are or ever will be, either.
>You believe that I am psychotic and you find this to be an occasion
>for laughter, is that correct?
No, but I do think it's a matter that must be taken into
consideration before deciding to talk ethics with you.
>When you look in the mirror, Derek, are you proud of who you see?
Absolutely and without a single doubt.
Rupert
In that case I am an animal rights advocate. I thought you maintained
that I am not an animal rights advocate because I said that if there
were some forms of animal agriculture that caused no more harm than
existing plant-based agriculture then I do not have a consistent basis
for opposing them. I accepted that that was a good reason for saying
that I am not an animal rights advocate and for that reason have not
called myself one for some years. In my view this stance is consistent
with the proposition that animals have the right not to be killed
unnecessarily. Certainly, my stance is just as consistent with that
proposition as your stance that you have the right to buy tofu and
vegetables.
> >> You still refer to yourself as an animal rights advocate
> >> even now after acknowledging that the label "animal
> >> rights advocate" might be a bit misleading.
>
> >No, that is not true, I have not referred to myself as an animal
> >rights advocate in recent memory.
>
> Your quote which refers to yourself as an animal rights
> advocate below this line is only a few weeks old, psycho.
>
I do not refer to myself as an animal rights advocate in that
quotation. I wouldn't want to cast aspersions on your mental health,
Derek, but you really are quite thick. The two quotations you have
given quite a few times now, taken together, say that it would not be
*that* misleading to refer to myself as an animal rights advocate, but
it would be *somewhat* misleading, and for that reason I haven't done
it for some years. That's what I've been saying. Get the picture?
> >> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
> >> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
> >> Rupert 7 August 2008http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
> >Yes, I did recently make that statement.
>
> Then you cannot continue to lie by insisting you haven't
> recently referred to yourself as an animal rights advocate.
>
Wrong.
> >It is true and consistent with everything else I have said.
>
> No, it's not consistent with your earlier quotes denying
> a position which advocates animal rights, psycho.
>
It is.
> >However, I also acknowledge that it would be *somewhat*
> >misleading
>
> No, it's a deliberate lie, and you know it but cannot face
> acknowledging it.
>
You're an idiot...
> >> but
>
> >> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> >> might be a bit misleading."
> >> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
> >That's right. Those two statements are consistent. Both are correct.
>
> Man, you're really having a bad day today, eh, psycho?
> Look at them again.
>
Done. What else can I do for you?
> "... it would not be that misleading to refer to
> myself as an "animal rights advocate".
> Rupert 7 August 2008http://tinyurl.com/5wk32o
>
> "I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
> might be a bit misleading."
> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/63rhzj
>
> They're as contradictory and as misleading as two
> statements could possibly be, you psychotic liar.
>
Well, all I can say is you're not really very well in touch with
reality, Derek, and you're not really in a position to be babbling
about psychosis. The two quotes are perfectly consistent, as native
English speakers can recognise, and they're both correct.
Let's try this in a different context. The stereo is not that loud.
It's a bit loud. Those two statements are consistent.
Have a think about it. It may penetrate your thick skull.
> >> and to cap it all, and reveal your stupidity and lies
>
> >> "I have never made any misleading statements about
> >> what I believe."
> >> Rupert 29 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/57hqkf
>
> >This statement is correct.
>
> Only to a psychotic liar, maybe.
>
The statement is correct; I have not made statements about what I
believe which would be misleading to people of normal intelligence.
You can't consistently concede that maybe I believe the statement is
correct and still call me a liar. If I believe that the statement is
correct then I'm not a liar, that's all it takes, it doesn't matter
what you think about the merits of the statement. But in any event,
the statement is correct.
> >> You're all over the place, psycho, and when asked
> >> to clarify your ever-changing position you whiff off
> >> instead and tell your enquirers that it is they and not
> >> you who is confused.
>
> >No, that's not true.
>
> False, as has been shown clearly by your own quotes.
>
Which ones?
>
>
> >> >> >You're not dealing with a psycho
>
> >> >> Yes I am, psycho.
>
> >> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> >> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> >> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> >> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> >> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> >> >> buses, and so forth."
> >> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
> >> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
> >> >What's the point of bringing this quotation up?
>
> >> To show that you're a self-confessed psycho who cannot
> >> be taken seriously.
>
> >I am not a self-confessed psycho. "Psycho"
>
> Your above quote demonstrates you are.
>
No, I eloquently and rationally set forth all the reasons why the
above quote does not do any such thing, and you snipped it in classic
cowardly Jonathan Ball style. Is he your role model? Do you want to be
more like him?
> >> There's nothing to be gained by talking
> >> to the mentally deranged people like you,
>
> >I am not mentally deranged
>
> You are, psycho. There's not a doubt in my mind.
>
In that case you are morally obliged to stop trying to debate me and
say "Rupert, you are not well enough to participate in this newsgroup,
please seek treatment."
> >> or the drunks
> >> like Harrison, and you must respect my right to reject your
> >> calls for a discussion concerning the ethics behind my
> >> lifestyle choices.
>
> >Of course I respect that right.
>
> Then we are done.
Good. Now fuck off, worthless toad, and never presume that you have
the right to engage in conversation with civilised and decent people
such as myself again.
Derek
>> >> like Harrison, and you must respect my right to reject your
>> >> calls for a discussion concerning the ethics behind my
>> >> lifestyle choices.
>> >
>> >Of course I respect that right.
>>
>> Then we are done.
>
>Good. Now fuck off
Hey, no need to go all psycho, psycho. Keep it down if
you can.
Rupert
Er, excuse me, you're still here? I thought you said we were done. You
want to stick around for more, do you? All right: you're a pitiful,
contemptible, worthless moral toad, unworthy to be spat upon or
urinated upon by me. Anything more you'd like to say?
Rupert
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:50:32 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 9:55 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 25, 8:37 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Suppose someone hadn't actually read any research about how race is
> >> >> >correlated with intelligence, and said "Why would I waste time trying
> >> >> >to discuss ethics with a nigger?" That's morally equivalent to what
> >> >> >you're doing.
>
> >> >> No, that's nonsense. What I'm doing is refusing to take seriously
> >> >> a person who suffers from "disorganized thinking" and a "loss of
> >> >> contact with reality".
>
> >> >It is true that if I were actually suffering from psychosis then it
> >> >would not be profitable to try to discuss ethics with me.
>
> >> Then you must respect my right to reject your demands
> >> that I discuss ethics with you, psycho.
>
> >As discussed elsewhere, I don't know what gave you the idea that I
> >don't respect that right
>
> I'm merely reminding you of it.
>
Why? What's the point? Your right to do as you see fit was never in
dispute. I immediately said it was perfectly fine if you didn't want
to talk about your ethical views, and I repeated that a number of
times. You seem to want to make a big deal out of it.
> >> >I am not currently experiencing disorganised thinking or loss of
> >> >contact with reality
>
> >> You cannot guarantee that, psycho,
>
> >Yes, I can.
>
> No, you cannot, psycho.
>
See other discussions of this point, including I think a discussion
which you snipped just now. I can guarantee it in the same sense that
you can guarantee that you are not psychotic, or that you are not
dreaming. While I take my medication regularly, the risk of me going
psychotic is not substantially higher than the risk of you going
psychotic. There are lots of very strong reasons to believe that I am
not psychotic. When one is well one is aware that one is well. If you
believe that I am psychotic then that merely underlines what an
unbelievable moral toad you are.
> >> and because you
> >> repeatedly fail to see that you've lied about your AR
> >> position while the quote I bring here show that you have,
> >> I've every reason to doubt that you're as well as you
> >> think you are.
>
> >No, you don't have the slightest reason to doubt that I'm well.
>
> I have every reason to doubt your sanity, psycho.
>
You don't, but if you think you do then your moral obligation is to
stop talking to me and request that I seek treatment, and doing
anything else marks you as a moral toad.
>
>
> >> >> [Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often
> >> >> described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People
> >> >> suffering from it are said to be psychotic.
>
> >> >> People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or
> >> >> delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and
> >> >> disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual
> >> >> or bizarre behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction
> >> >> and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.]
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
>
> >> >Yep, that's right. That's what it is.
>
> >> >> "When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about
> >> >> my social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that
> >> >> anyone might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled
> >> >> out of control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden
> >> >> cameras, and having messages broadcast to me through ads on
> >> >> buses, and so forth."
> >> >> Rupert 31 July 2007
> >> >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.animals/msg/c2b48f2e21...
>
> >> >Yes, Derek, that is correct, that is what happened in 2001 and 2002;
> >> >it has no bearing on what is going on now
>
> >> You, being psycho and all that aren't equipped to guarantee
> >> anything, psycho.
>
> >That's a circular argument, Derek.
>
> No, it is not. It's a statement of fact, not an argument.
>
It's not a statement of fact, it's rubbish and it contains a
meaningless word. At least say "psychotic". I'm not psychotic, as any
sensible person can see.
> >> >> You're certifiable,
>
> >> >No, I'm not
>
> >> Yes, you are.
>
> >The people who get to decide whether I'm certifiable are by definition
> >the doctors, Derek, not you, and they say that I'm well. So I'm afraid
> >you're wrong.
>
> False. I know a known psycho when I observe one, just
> like I know a known drunk when I observe one, and I
> don't need to be a doctor to make those correct
> observations.
>
I'm afraid you're wrong about that; you're not competent to do amateur
psychiatric diagnoses. You know absolutely nothing about mental
illness. But if you genuinely believe that I'm mentally ill, then that
merely underlines what a moral toad you are.
> >> >> and you want ME to take YOU seriously
> >> >> and discuss the ethics behind MY principles? Get the fuck
> >> >> outa here, psycho.
>
> >> >To repeat myself
>
> >> Yes, you probably do a lot of that while you "gradually
> >> spiral out of control into ideas about being spied upon with
> >> hidden cameras, and having messages broadcast to [you]
> >> through ads on buses, and so forth."
>
> >Words cannot convey my unbelievable contempt for you
>
> And what makes you believe I give a damn, psycho?
Nothing. I do not believe that you give a damn and I have no interest
in making you give a damn. I derive satisfaction from waxing eloquent
about how contemptible you are, I like to think that one or two other
readers of this newsgroup who are decent people will appreciate my
commentary on the matter. I take proud in taking a militant stand
against stigma against people with mental illness. That's all.
Why are you still here? I thought you said we were done.
Derek
Go outside and get some air, psycho. You're going to hurt
someone if you don't take a break.
Rupert
Because it's a travesty of the English language, that's why. Stupid
clown.
> >You believe that I am psychotic and you find this to be an occasion
> >for laughter, is that correct?
>
> No,
Then why did you laugh, pitiful toad?
> but I do think it's a matter that must be taken into
> consideration before deciding to talk ethics with you.
>
That would certainly be a reasonable stance for you to take if you
genuinely believed I was psychotic. But, as discussed many times, if
you genuinely believed I was psychotic then what you are currently
doing would also be morally unconscionable, and not particularly
constructive either.
> >When you look in the mirror, Derek, are you proud of who you see?
>
> Absolutely and without a single doubt.
You ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
Rupert
Fuck off, worthless toad. Stop having the effrontery to presume you're
fit to address words to people who have a shred of moral decency.
I might wander down to the pub and get a beer, actually.
You are a worthless piece of filth. Now fuck off.
Rupert
> "Derek" <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e1n3b41f3ntgccs5v...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 24, 9:46 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Aug 23, 11:35 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >So, Derek, show me how I've got it wrong. There's such a thing as a
> > >> >> >coherent animal rights position, is there? Tell me all about it.
>
> > >> >> If your request is a genuine one and you believe I have the
> > >> >> answer you're looking for, Google my exchanges with other
> > >> >> animal welfarists like yourself on these issues over the last 6
> > >> >> years.
>
> > >> >I would be interested to hear you expound and defend your position.
>
> > >> Understand this, psycho - you don't get to demand that I
> > >> explain and defend my position because you've abandoned
> > >> your own. The archives are heavy with over 6 years of my
> > >> explanations defending the pro-AR position, and I'm now
> > >> satisfied that it's an indomitable position which needs no
> > >> further argument from me today, so start Googling if you
> > >> want to understand it.
>
> > >> >You should also treat me with decency in our debates
>
> > >> Says you, less than 24 hours after writing,
>
> > >> "You clearly lack the mental competence to have a
> > >> conversation with me, not to mention that you are
> > >> unworthy of being spat upon by me."
>
> > >> Is that how you take the moral high ground, rupie?
>
> > >Yup.
>
> > Well, what else could I possibly expect from a psycho, eh?
>
> > >since you use "psycho" as a term of abuse to someone who has a mental
> > >health history
>
> > But that's what you are, rupie: a psycho,
>
> > "I need an antipsychotic medication to function properly."
>
> > and if you're offended by what you are, then so be it. Maybe,
> > if you ever experience a few moments of clarity, you may
> > realise that that's why I can never take you seriously. What
> > on Earth can I or anyone possibly gain by trying to discuss
> > ethics with a psycho?
>
> etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
> and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
> painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
> themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
> through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
> every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
> target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
>
> The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopathhttp://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm*
> *
> Rupert: if you've not yet looked at this resource, please do
> it now; you will find an *exact* description of these types.
>
You know my mother has a problem with someone at work like that.
pearl
> patronizing, insulting, condescending style. When
> someone does it to her using blunt verbal
> attacks she cries like a colicky baby. Don't be
> fooled, she is one nasty piece of work.
That's you, ditch, and you're reaping what you sow.
Dutch
Bless you too, for you are GOD, despite yourself.
dh
He is a nasty one too.
>and you're reaping what you sow.
You are guilty as he accused you. I remember how nasty
and abusive you got just because I asked you to explain
which of your beliefs the Goober was lying about and
which you actually believed. A normal person would
appreciate the courtesy, but you pissed all over me for
showing it and attacked me as if I'd done you wrong
instead of right. By doing that you showed a number of
things about yourself, none of them good.
pearl
Let's see who the archive reveals as nasty and abusive,
pissing and attacking..
pearl View profile
More options Feb 25 2007, 1:51 pm
Newsgroups: misc.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.food.vegan
From: "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:51:08 -0000
Local: Sun, Feb 25 2007 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Fuckwit's (dh@) Beliefs
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
<dh@..> wrote in message news:b1dvt2lf2q8hr5if0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:37:39 -0000, "pearl" pointed out:
> >You are a sick liar, jonathan ball.
> Yes he is, but in this strange case it appears he's telling
> the truth. Since you won't ever explain which of your
> absurd beliefs you claim to disagree with, it can only
> be believed that you agree with all of them...if only
> because you provide no alternative to believe.
I have repeatedly said that I do not "believe in" all of
the items on his 'list'. Various items have been argued,
and more than once. So perhaps you should have paid
better attention to what was being said. Even if I hadn't,
why should I? It is up to ball to support his claim that
I "believe in" all the items on his fabricated 'list' - which
was created because you antis cannot honestly refute
any of the on-topic arguments put forth, to serve as a
distraction and diversion, as well as to cast doubt on
my credibility. It is nothing but pathetic ad hominem.
> But there
> is more, for example you have admitted to hold belief in
> the hollow earth/ inner beings etc ridiculence, so any
> other idiotic ideas seem quite right for you.
You have been given good evidence, yet you continue
to ignorantly scoff. That's -your- idiotic "ridiculence".
Watch this video of "Jan Lamprecht's lecture on the
Hollow Earth Theory, recorded at the Nexus conference
in Amsterdam. Lamprecht discusses not only the
background of the theory, but also the science that
validates the theory." Tell us what you think about it.
http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&viewvid=158
> If you're
> now claiming to disagree with any of them, just try to
> SAY WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE.
I'm not willing to cater to this pitiful ad hominem at all,
so, if you're really /that/ interested in what I agree with
you can search the archives, or pester ball for quotes.
------------------
pearl View profile
More options Feb 25 2007, 7:59 pm
Newsgroups: misc.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.food.vegan
From: "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:59:23 -0000
Local: Sun, Feb 25 2007 7:59 pm
Subject: Re: Fuckwit's (dh@) Beliefs
<dh@.> wrote in message news:uel3u29734l77i34e...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:51:08 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> ><dh@..> wrote in message news:b1dvt2lf2q8hr5if0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:37:39 -0000, "pearl" pointed out:
> >> >You are a sick liar, jonathan ball.
> >> Yes he is, but in this strange case it appears he's telling
> >> the truth. Since you won't ever explain which of your
> >> absurd beliefs you claim to disagree with, it can only
> >> be believed that you agree with all of them...if only
> >> because you provide no alternative to believe.
> >I have repeatedly said that I do not "believe in" all of
> >the items on his 'list'. Various items have been argued,
> >and more than once. So perhaps you should have paid
> >better attention to what was being said. Even if I hadn't,
> >why should I? It is up to ball to support his claim that
> >I "believe in" all the items on his fabricated 'list'
> You have admitted to believing in some of them, so
> it's up to YOU--not everybody else!--to say which you
> don't, IF there are any. By your own behavior we have
> nothing but more evidence that you believe in all of it,
> AND are ashamed of your belief in at least some of it.
Nonsense. It is up to those making claims to support them.
> >- which
> >was created because you antis cannot honestly refute
> >any of the on-topic arguments put forth, to serve as a
> >distraction and diversion, as well as to cast doubt on
> >my credibility. It is nothing but pathetic ad hominem.
> >> But there
> >> is more, for example you have admitted to hold belief in
> >> the hollow earth/ inner beings etc ridiculence, so any
> >> other idiotic ideas seem quite right for you.
> >You have been given good evidence, yet you continue
> >to ignorantly scoff. That's -your- idiotic "ridiculence".
> >Watch this video of "Jan Lamprecht's lecture on the
> >Hollow Earth Theory, recorded at the Nexus conference
> >in Amsterdam. Lamprecht discusses not only the
> >background of the theory, but also the science that
> >validates the theory." Tell us what you think about it.
> >http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&viewvid=158
> My computer's too slow for all that. If you think there's
> good reason to believe the Earth is hollow, etc, then
> just post the reason(s) when someone asks. But that
> doesn't get you out of the other beliefs. Other than the
> fact that he rarely (if ever!) tells the truth, people really
> don't have any reason not to believe the Goober this
> time. Your belief in the hollow Earth, and your refusal
> to explain yourself, strongly suggest that Goo's actually
> being honest for a strange change.
You've had evidence before. Go look it up, timewaster.
> >> If you're
> >> now claiming to disagree with any of them, just try to
> >> SAY WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE.
> >I'm not willing to cater to this pitiful ad hominem at all,
> >so, if you're really /that/ interested in what I agree with
> >you can search the archives, or pester ball for quotes.
> There is no need. Your behavior--your refusal to
> simply "explain", and your desperate attempts to
> justify such an asburd refusal--screams loudly that
> you DO believe everything Goo says you believe,
> AND that you are (very rightly) ashamed of some
> of YOUR OWN beliefs. Actions often speak louder
> than words, sometimes even when those actions
> are no more than an absurd refusal to act as in
> your case.
Get a life, troll.
---------------------------
148. d...@. View profile
More options Feb 27 2007, 9:39 pm
Newsgroups: misc.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.food.vegan
From: dh@.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:39:26 -0500
Local: Tues, Feb 27 2007 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: Fuckwit's (dh@) Beliefs
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:59:23 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message news:uel3u29734l77i34e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:51:08 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> ><dh@..> wrote in message news:b1dvt2lf2q8hr5if0...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:37:39 -0000, "pearl" pointed out:
>> >> >You are a sick liar, jonathan ball.
>> >> Yes he is, but in this strange case it appears he's telling
>> >> the truth. Since you won't ever explain which of your
>> >> absurd beliefs you claim to disagree with, it can only
>> >> be believed that you agree with all of them...if only
>> >> because you provide no alternative to believe.
>> >I have repeatedly said that I do not "believe in" all of
>> >the items on his 'list'. Various items have been argued,
>> >and more than once. So perhaps you should have paid
>> >better attention to what was being said. Even if I hadn't,
>> >why should I? It is up to ball to support his claim that
>> >I "believe in" all the items on his fabricated 'list'
>> You have admitted to believing in some of them, so
>> it's up to YOU--not everybody else!--to say which you
>> don't, IF there are any. By your own behavior we have
>> nothing but more evidence that you believe in all of it,
>> AND are ashamed of your belief in at least some of it.
>Nonsense. It is up to those making claims to support them.
You are claiming to disagree with some of what appear
to be YOUR OWN beliefs, yet you pathetically can't even
say WHICH of your apparent beliefs you think you disagree
with, much less how or why you think you disagree with them.
ALL evidence suggests that the Goober is telling the
truth, and you are the one lying this time.
>> >- which
>> >was created because you antis cannot honestly refute
>> >any of the on-topic arguments put forth, to serve as a
>> >distraction and diversion, as well as to cast doubt on
>> >my credibility. It is nothing but pathetic ad hominem.
>> >> But there
>> >> is more, for example you have admitted to hold belief in
>> >> the hollow earth/ inner beings etc ridiculence, so any
>> >> other idiotic ideas seem quite right for you.
>> >You have been given good evidence, yet you continue
>> >to ignorantly scoff. That's -your- idiotic "ridiculence".
>> >Watch this video of "Jan Lamprecht's lecture on the
>> >Hollow Earth Theory, recorded at the Nexus conference
>> >in Amsterdam. Lamprecht discusses not only the
>> >background of the theory, but also the science that
>> >validates the theory." Tell us what you think about it.
>> >http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Google_Videos&viewvid=158
>> My computer's too slow for all that. If you think there's
>> good reason to believe the Earth is hollow, etc, then
>> just post the reason(s) when someone asks. But that
>> doesn't get you out of the other beliefs. Other than the
>> fact that he rarely (if ever!) tells the truth, people really
>> don't have any reason not to believe the Goober this
>> time. Your belief in the hollow Earth, and your refusal
>> to explain yourself, strongly suggest that Goo's actually
>> being honest for a strange change.
>You've had evidence before. Go look it up, timewaster.
That's bullshit. Your behavior is amusing because
it's so very far from reality... What you are hoping and
apparently consider to be an actual possibility...lol...is
that I might actually believe this crap you're spewing
now and waste my time going to look for something
that we both know could not be found because it
doesn't exist, and even more amusingly you must think
that when I never find it (because it doesnt exist) I
might for some reason still believe your claim that it
does. LOL...even though you can't provide examples
of it and of course I could never find any even if I tried
to, you hilariously believe I might still be fooled into
believing you somehow anyway.
>> >> If you're
>> >> now claiming to disagree with any of them, just try to
>> >> SAY WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE.
>> >I'm not willing to cater to this pitiful ad hominem at all,
>> >so, if you're really /that/ interested in what I agree with
>> >you can search the archives, or pester ball for quotes.
>> There is no need. Your behavior--your refusal to
>> simply "explain", and your desperate attempts to
>> justify such an asburd refusal--screams loudly that
>> you DO believe everything Goo says you believe,
>> AND that you are (very rightly) ashamed of some
>> of YOUR OWN beliefs. Actions often speak louder
>> than words, sometimes even when those actions
>> are no more than an absurd refusal to act as in
>> your case.
>Get a life, troll.
Part of your life is to encourage people to believe in
the absurd, and part of mine is to point out when people
do that. This is an excellent example: Goo points out
absurd things that you have no doubt encouraged
people to believe...you amusingly claim not to believe
some of them while being completely unable to tell us
which one(s)...I point out that we have reason to believe
Goo and NO reason to believe you...you suggest that
anyone curious about whether or not you're telling the
truth do a search for something that doesn't exist,
apparently--HILARIOUSLY!--believing that if someone
were to do such a useless search and of course find
nothing to support your dishonesty, they would still for
some unexplainable reason believe you're not lying.
Here's a little hint for your life: If a person doesn't
believe you're telling the truth before they do a useless
search the results of which could only suggest that you
are lying, they're almost certainly still not going to believe
you're telling the truth after doing a useless search the
results of which could only suggest that you are lying.
For some people that is fairly obvious, while you don't
seem able to comprehend the fact at all.
--------------------------------
149. pearl View profile
More options Feb 28 2007, 2:42 am
Newsgroups: misc.rural, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.food.vegan
From: "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:42:48 -0000
Local: Wed, Feb 28 2007 2:42 am
Subject: Re: Fuckwit's (dh@) Beliefs
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ub59u21toqe47a47u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:59:23 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
..
> >Nonsense. It is up to those making claims to support them.
> You are claiming to disagree with some of what appear
David Harrison:
'The Attention-Seeker
Motivation: to be the centre of attention
Mindset: control freak, manipulation, narcissism
Malice: medium to high; when held accountable, very high
- emotionally immature
- selectively friendly - is sickly sweet to some people, rude
and offhand to others, and ignores the rest
- is cold and aggressive towards anyone who sees them for what
they really are or exposes their strategies for gaining attention
- overfriendly with their new target, especially in the initial stages
of a new working relationship
- overhelpful, ditto
- overgenerous, ditto
- manipulative of people's perceptions, but in an amateur and
childish manner
- manipulative with guilt, ditto
- sycophantic, fawning, toadying
- uses flattery to keep a person in authority on side
- everything is a drama, usually a poor-me drama
- prefers not to solve problems in own life so that they can be
used and re-used for gaining sympathy and attention
- capitalises on issues and uses them as a soapbox for gaining attention
- exploits others' suffering and grief as a vehicle for gaining attention
- misappropriates others' statements, eg anything which can be
misconstrued as politically incorrect, for control and attention-seeking
- excusitis, makes excuses for everything
- shows a lot of indignation, especially when challenged
- lots of self-pity
- often as miserable as sin, apart from carefully constructed moments
of charm when in the act of deceiving
- demanding of others
- easily provoked
- feigns victimhood when held accountable, usually by bursting into
tears or claiming they're the one being bullied and harassed
- presents as a false victim when outwitted
- may feign exclusion, isolation or persecution
- malicious
- constantly tries and will do almost anything to be in the spotlight
- includes Munchausen Syndrome
- the focus of their life is to be the centre of attention
..
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Now pester me some more, dh@....
dh
We see me trying to help you.
Notice that since you claimed to disagree with some
of Goo's lies, I encouraged you to SAY WHAT YOU
THINK THEY ARE. You never did. You still never
have.
No, it was not nonsense. You're absurd behavior
screemed that Goo was telling the truth about all of
it, which is not what I'd wanted to find out. I had
wanted you to point out how the Goober was lying,
but since you couldn't do it that very strongly suggested
that he was telling the truth.
>It is up to those making claims to support them.
I tried to get you to support your own claims
but you wouldn't do it. Instead you wussed, which
is usually a Goober trick.
Notice that bullshit? So even if someone tried to
believe your absurd behavior wasn't also dishonest,
what would you hope for them to think...that you're
just too lazy to explain what the Goober is lying about?
. . .
>>> If you think there's
>>> good reason to believe the Earth is hollow, etc, then
>>> just post the reason(s) when someone asks. But that
>>> doesn't get you out of the other beliefs. Other than the
>>> fact that he rarely (if ever!) tells the truth, people really
>>> don't have any reason not to believe the Goober this
>>> time. Your belief in the hollow Earth, and your refusal
>>> to explain yourself, strongly suggest that Goo's actually
>>> being honest for a strange change.
>
>>You've had evidence before. Go look it up, timewaster.
>
> That's bullshit. Your behavior is amusing because
>it's so very far from reality... What you are hoping and
>apparently consider to be an actual possibility...lol...is
>that I might actually believe this crap you're spewing
>now and waste my time going to look for something
>that we both know could not be found because it
>doesn't exist, and even more amusingly you must think
>that when I never find it (because it doesnt exist) I
>might for some reason still believe your claim that it
>does. LOL...even though you can't provide examples
>of it and of course I could never find any even if I tried
>to, you hilariously believe I might still be fooled into
>believing you somehow anyway.
. . .
> Here's a little hint for your life: If a person doesn't
>believe you're telling the truth before they do a useless
>search the results of which could only suggest that you
>are lying, they're almost certainly still not going to believe
>you're telling the truth after doing a useless search the
>results of which could only suggest that you are lying.
>For some people that is fairly obvious, while you don't
>seem able to comprehend the fact at all.
The above are all excellent things for you to consider
since you don't seem to be familiar with them.
. . .
>Now pester me some more, dh@....
All that I said was true, and I remember more abuse
from you about it. I started out trying to get you to give
examples of how the Goober is lying, like maybe say
you believe in the inner Earth thing because of blah
blah blah, but Goo is lying and you disbelieve in whatever
you were saying he was lying about because blah blah
blah. My attempt was to get you to point out exactly
what the Goober was lying about, not challenge you
to explain yourself. But instead of pointing out how
Goo was being dishonest, you assholed me. Of course
I've always suspected that you and the Goober are
really both working together though since you're both
hard core eliminationists, and your behavior during
that episode certainly reinforced the idea.