>> On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote: >>> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>>> Thanks for proving my point! >>> Vulgarity is all you have. >>> You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>>>> ... do your reading. >>> Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading" >>> to provide a polite, intelligent response? >>> Don't have the ability??
>>> Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
>>> Laurie
>>> -- >>> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html >>> news:alt.food.vegan.science
>> 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are >> vegan only for the better health aspect.
>Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons. One might be >vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan". >"vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well >as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear >leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
That's true Goo, and if it's easy enough for you to understand it then it should be easy enough for anyone to understand it. So it brings questions to mind, like:
1. Are these people who try to create the impression that they don't understand really too stupid to comprehend, or are they dishonestly pretending to be for some reason?
2. Why do they want to promote the false impression that there are people who are vegan for reasons that don't involve animals?
You being the most dishonest person I've ever encountered should have an idea why they do it Goob, but of course that doesn't mean you'll be honest about what it is. Why are you even honest about the fact that they're being dishonest, btw? Now that we mention it, in the VAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of cases it's you who is the dishonest party, not "the other guy", so what strange quirk put you on the honest side for a change, Goo?
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:58:37 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote: >"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:stadncDxuu5Eia_VnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@earthlink.com... >> the stupid fuckwit moooooshki lied:
>> > On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote: >> >> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's >..
>> > 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are >> > vegan only for the better health aspect.
>> Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons. One might be >> vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan". >> "vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well >> as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear >> leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
>International Vegetarian Union definitions includes "dietary vegan"..
> 'Vegan: excludes animal flesh (meat, poultry, fish and seafood), animal >products (eggs and dairy), and usually excludes honey and the wearing >and use of animal products (leather, silk, wool, lanolin, gelatin...). >.. >Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and >exclude non-food uses of animals.
Then I can call myself an Intermittent Dietary Vegan. During my meals I will take a bite of animal flesh, and then a bite of something like rice or potatoe, often followed by a bite of some cellulose based vegetable like broccoli, then a bite of animal flesh, then back to the vegan portions...inermittently alternating between veganism and carnivorism several times during the course of each meal. Or do you think it would be better to just say that I'm a vegan who consumes and wears animal based products?
>Why Vegan?
>VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, >as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty >to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. *
Why do YOU want to promote the dishonest idea that some supposed vegans don't care about animals, do you know?
>>>> On May 17, 9:29 pm, Laurie <n...@spam.com> wrote: >>>>> sumbeotch at scumbum dot cum wrote:> not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....ff the spam ng's
>>>>> Thanks for proving my point! >>>>> Vulgarity is all you have. >>>>> You have no ability to refute anything I said.
>>>>>> ... do your reading. >>>>> Why don't you use your own obviously extensive "reading" >>>>> to provide a polite, intelligent response? >>>>> Don't have the ability??
>>>>> Why don't you trim off the irrelevant ng's?
>>>>> Laurie
>>>>> -- >>>>> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html >>>>> news:alt.food.vegan.science
>>>> 1. Some vegans do, in fact, care nothing for animals; are >>>> vegan only for the better health aspect.
>>>Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons. One might be >>>vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health reasons, but not "vegan". >>>"vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not just foods, as well >>>as some products tested for safety on animals. Nobody refuses to wear >>>leather shoes or wool trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
>> That's true Goo,
>Of course it is.
No, the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of the time what you post is a lie, Goo.
>[snip cracker bullshit]
Why are you so afraid to address the following facts and questions Goob? Why don't you want the dishonesty behind what they attempt, to be revealed to everyone Goo?
>>and if it's easy enough for you to understand it >>then it should be easy enough for anyone to understand it. So it >>brings questions to mind, like:
>>1. Are these people who try to create the impression that they don't >>understand really too stupid to comprehend, or are they dishonestly >>pretending to be for some reason?
>>2. Why do they want to promote the false impression that there >>are people who are vegan for reasons that don't involve animals?
>>You being the most dishonest person I've ever encountered should >>have an idea why they do it Goob, but of course that doesn't mean >>you'll be honest about what it is. Why are you even honest about >>the fact that they're being dishonest, btw? Now that we mention it, >>in the VAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of cases it's you who is the >>dishonest party, not "the other guy", so what strange quirk put you >>on the honest side for a change, Goo?
Goober, why were you so unusually and very uncharacteristically honest about something, can you say or must we guess?
On Tue, 20 May 2008, the Goober wrote: >Why did it take so long, Goo?
Probably perturbations in the flux of spacetime in this region Goober.
>Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire "take" >on the issue of animal "rights" is bullshit?
How do you think pointing out the fact that it wouldn't provide better lives, longer lives, more lives or ANY lives--much less provide "rights"--for domestic animals is bullshit Goob, do you have any idea?
>There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
Yet you have repeatedly indicated that you aren't aware of a single one of them, Goo. If you think you are finally aware of any and capable of explaining it/them, I challenge you to try doing so now. GO:
(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off in a most inept and cowardly way)
>> Probably perturbations in the flux of spacetime in this region Goober.
>>>Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire "take" >>>on the issue of animal "rights" is bullshit?
>> How do you think pointing out the fact that it wouldn't provide >>better lives, longer lives, more lives or ANY lives--much less provide >>"rights"--for domestic animals is bullshit Goob, do you have any idea?
>>>There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
>> Yet you have repeatedly indicated that you aren't aware of a single >>one of them, Goo. If you think you are finally aware of any and capable >>of explaining it/them, I challenge you to try doing so now. GO:
>>(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off >>in a most inept and cowardly way)
>No, Goo. *I* have elaborated logical and correct opposition to "ar".
As I correctly predicted Goober you can not do it. You can't now, you never could, and you will never be able to. You have completely failed the challenge. The challenge still stands though Goo, so try. We can't say try again because as I predicted you wussed off in a most inept and cowardly way without trying at all, so try doing it now Goo:
(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Bullshit. No one is "vegan" for health reasons.
After his compulsive vulgarity, noBalls here falsely claims to have interviewed ALL vegan on the planet and "NONE" has changed their diets for health reasons. Clearly, that is a lie.
> One might be vegetarian for (poorly thought out) health
reasons, ... There are thousands on credible scientific articles finding that eating meat is associated with all currently-popular "degenerative diseases". http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat Further, noBalls can not support his claim "poorly thought out"; he can not provide any support for hos claims, he never can, he never does.
> ... "vegan" means eschewing *all* animal products, not > just foods, as well as some products tested for safety on > animals. Nobody refuses to wear leather shoes or wool > trousers because he feels it's inherently unhealthful.
noBalls apparently does not know the dietary vegans simply eliminate animal products from their diet, but there are so called "ethical vegans" who choose to not harm animals in ways other than diet. These choices are based on a false concept of "ethics".
Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science
Rudy Canoza wrote: > There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing > "ar", but *none* of your bullshit is among them.
You can not present any moral reasons for anything because there is NO objective standards of ethics/morals. And how does, arguably, the most immoral person in cyberspace qualified to lecture on morals? Your false msg headers prove that not only are you admitting your lack of moral refinement, but that you are ASHAMED at your own psychopathic behavior.
Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science
On May 22, 9:50 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> larry forti, *FAILED* engineer who now orders fiberglass wicks to make > bombs to be used for terrorism, lied:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar", but > >> *none* of your bullshit is among them. > > You can not present any moral reasons for anything because > > there is NO objective standards of ethics/morals.
> Irrelevant, Mr. Pseudo-Science.
Boobs, you're trying to hide from Rupert by having Laurie kick your ass?
On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:24:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote: >On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:48:34 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 May 2008, Goo lied:
>>>On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:10:45 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 20 May 2008, the Goober wrote:
>>>>>Why did it take so long, Goo?
>>>> Probably perturbations in the flux of spacetime in this region Goober.
>>>>>Why haven't you learned in over NINE years, Goo, that your entire "take" >>>>>on the issue of animal "rights" is bullshit?
>>>> How do you think pointing out the fact that it wouldn't provide >>>>better lives, longer lives, more lives or ANY lives--much less provide >>>>"rights"--for domestic animals is bullshit Goob, do you have any idea?
>>>>>There are valid, logical and moral reasons for opposing "ar"
>>>> Yet you have repeatedly indicated that you aren't aware of a single >>>>one of them, Goo. If you think you are finally aware of any and capable >>>>of explaining it/them, I challenge you to try doing so now. GO:
>>>>(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off >>>>in a most inept and cowardly way)
>>>No, Goo. *I* have elaborated logical and correct opposition to "ar".
>> As I correctly predicted Goober you can not do it. You can't >>now, you never could, and you will never be able to. You have >>completely failed the challenge. The challenge still stands though >>Goo, so try. We can't say try again because as I predicted you >>wussed off in a most inept and cowardly way without trying at >>all, so try doing it now Goo:
>>(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to >>present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
>No, Goo. You did not "predict" anything,
In contrast to that lie Goo, I correctly predicted your complete ineptitude as far as being able to provide any opposition to the misnomer. Every time I make that prediction I'm right Goober, each and every time. Recently I've made two correct predictions which YOU fulfilled by being so inept. The two correct predictions are:
(prediction: the Goober will be unable to present any, wussing off in a most inept and cowardly way)
(correct prediction: the Goober will as always be unable to present opposition and be forced to go the coward's way again)
>*JUST* as you do not "point out"
That's another lie Goo, and pointing out that it's a lie reveals the lie itself. You sure are a stupid Goober. In contrast to your inability to oppose elimination Goob I will now point out--with examples--that you try to promote its acceptance:
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm animals" - Goo
"if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live" - Goo
"not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
"it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a
