Re: Faith required to be a strong atheist!
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>
>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>
>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>
>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>
> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
Do you often get confused as to whether you've already responded to a post?
Or do you believe that two replies is better than one?
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:a-Gdnafth-b92wbX...@posted.toastnet...
> Dutch wrote:
>>
>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>>
>>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>>
>>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>>
>> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
>
> Do you often
Respond to nitwits like you?
Too often, thanks for asking.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:a-Gdnafth-b92wbX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>>>
>>>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>>>
>>> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
>>
>
Yes, I suppose you are.
Dutch
>
> Yes
Obviously
dh
>
>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>news:Taudnepd49cTJjjX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a-Gdnafth-b92wbX...@posted.toastnet...
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> Do you often get confused as to whether you've already responded to a
>>>> post?
>>>
>>> nitwit?
>>
>> Yes, I suppose you are.
>
>Obviously
You certainly do appear to be. It brings up the question of:
How stupid are you?
Are you stupid enough to think anyone actually believes any of your
lies, and if so, which ones do you think who believes?
Nostrodumbass
<dh@.> wrote in message news:6bqha5dd7vtilmo3d...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:55:49 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>news:Taudnepd49cTJjjX...@posted.toastnet...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:a-Gdnafth-b92wbX...@posted.toastnet...
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>>>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you often get confused as to whether you've already responded to a
>>>>> post?
>>>>
>>>> nitwit?
>>>
>>> Yes, I suppose you are.
>>
>>Obviously
>
> You certainly do appear to be.
You appear to be operating from the theory that content doesn't matter,
whoever lasts the longest wins.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:Taudnepd49cTJjjX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a-Gdnafth-b92wbX...@posted.toastnet...
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> I'm pointing out
>>>>>>>>> You're pounding sand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's talking to a brick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your colossal ignorance is unimportant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours is the subject of the current discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uhh.. no it isn't, nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> Do you often get confused as to whether you've already responded to
>>>> a post?
>>>
>>> nitwit?
>>
>
Yes, it is rather obvious.
So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
responded to a post?
Nostrodumbass
> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
> responded to a post?
I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare, unless the
news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
Why do you ask?
dh
<ne...@spammer.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> asked:
>
>Are you stupid enough to think anyone actually believes any of your
>lies, and if so, which ones do you think who believes?
>
>You appear to be operating from the theory that content doesn't matter,
>whoever lasts the longest wins.
I'm hoping you will tell us which of your lies you think I or
anyone else believes.
dh
He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to try to
disagree with yourself. Maybe he's trying to figure out whether you're more
honestly mentally impaired or more deliberately dishonest, as I've been trying
to do for the past nine or ten years or whatever...
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:2kt1c5dvlra7s3bpp...@4ax.com...
He asked because asking stupid questions is his game.
Tim McGaughy
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass" <ne...@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
>>> responded to a post?
>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare, unless the
>> news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>
>> Why do you ask?
>
> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to try to
> disagree with yourself.
Actually, I was addressing Dutch, who had just composed two replies to a
post I'd made.
I have no idea why Nostrodumbass thought I was addressing him, unless
he's a Dutch sock.
Tim McGaughy
I'm sorry the questions were beyond your intellectual capacity. I did
try to keep them simple.
Dutch
Go play your silly games somewhere else, child.
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
> dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass" <ne...@spammer.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
>>>> responded to a post?
>>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare, unless
>>> the news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to try
>> to
>> disagree with yourself.
>
> Actually, I was addressing Dutch, who had just composed two replies to a
> post I'd made.
Wow, imagine that. That must have blown your little mind.
> I have no idea
No clue you mean..
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass"
>>>> <ne...@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
>>>>>> responded to a post?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare,
>>>>> unless the
>>>>> news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>
>>>> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to
>>>> try to
>>>> disagree with yourself. Maybe he's trying to figure out whether
>>>> you're more
>>>> honestly mentally impaired or more deliberately dishonest, as I've
>>>> been trying
>>>> to do for the past nine or ten years or whatever...
>>>
>>> He asked because asking stupid questions is his game.
>>
>> I'm sorry the questions were beyond your intellectual capacity. I did
>> try to keep them simple.
>
> Go play your silly games somewhere else, child.
So everything you can't understand is a silly game?
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass"
>>> <ne...@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've
>>>>> already responded to a post?
>>>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare,
>>>> unless the news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>
>>> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to
>>> try to
>>> disagree with yourself.
>>
>> Actually, I was addressing Dutch, who had just composed two replies to
>> a post I'd made.
>
> Wow, imagine that. That must have blown your little mind.
I'm not quite as easily confused as you.
Dutch
No, everything YOU post (to me, so far) has been a silly game. If that were
not the case you would have attempted to respond to at least some of my
earlier questions. I do understand, playing silly games is part of what
usenet is about. I hope you're having fun. For some reason I don't fully
understand though, probably related to my good upbringing, I continue to
expect that, against all odds, a brick will fall on your head and you will
suddenly begin to act like a grownup. I won't hold my breath though.
Dutch
It must make you feel proud to think that.
dh
wrote:
LOL! Asking questions to make you expose how stupid you
are appears to be his game now that you mention it, since
you keep displaying remarkable stupidity in responce to his
questions.
dh
wrote:
>
>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>news:ZfqdndsODeNMO17X...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass" <ne...@spammer.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've already
>>>>>>> responded to a post?
>>>>>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare,
>>>>>> unless the news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>>
>>>>> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to
>>>>> try to
>>>>> disagree with yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I was addressing Dutch, who had just composed two replies to a
>>>> post I'd made.
>>>
>>> Wow, imagine that. That must have blown your little mind.
>>
>> I'm not quite as easily confused as you.
>
>It must make you feel proud to think that.
Maybe not that so much as it would give him reason for
great concern if it appeared that he's as stupid as you are.
dh
Yes, that was just him pretending to be someone else. He
first entered these ngs admitting to being a veg*n of some
sort, and also to be in favor of the misnomer:
"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence
is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a
daughter
you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years." - "Dutch"
"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"
Later he claimed to have a complete change of view, began
pretending to try to oppose the misnomer, and began
referring to himself as "Apostate". Not a lot of people brag
about being a traitor...in fact he's the only one I can
think of, but at least he was consistent with his tendency
to disagree with himself. Even if I *tried* to agree with
him I would have to completely change my pov on things from
time to time, just because that's what he does. For example
there was a time when he claimed the lives of livestock
should be taken into consideration:
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only
because humans raise them for food, that's obvious." -
"Dutch"
"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." -
"Dutch"
"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
yet now he sings a completely different song and says we
should never consider the lives of any livestock. He does
flip flop around between saying we should never consider the
lives of any beings, and saying we should consider the lives
of wildlife and child sex slaves but apparently those of no
other types of creatures. That's another one doesn't
understand well enough to give a decent explanation as to
what he thinks he thinks about it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:9ud7c51jikl0tukpa...@4ax.com...
Asking questions in the hopes of making someone appear stupid is a very
common usenet game and he was playing it. The payoff is, if you can make
someone else appear stupid it makes you feel smart, at least temporarily.
Its a mug's game though because you never actually become smart doing it.
But then why am I lecturing you, your game is apparently to make everyone
else feel smart.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:54e7c5diqk1cogllb...@4ax.com...
Briefly.
Dutch
Do you enjoy showing off what an illiterate boob you are?
flower of romance
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Mtjxm.23665$tG1....@newsfe22.iad...
Too feel smart. :)
>your game is apparently to make everyone else feel smart.
I partially agree with what you said but IMO the game is not to make oneself
look smart but to make oneself look the smartest and to nake oneself look
the only smart one. As you said, a mugs game because these people try to
look smarter than people they know nothing about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dutch
"flower of romance" <th...@noname.com> wrote in message
news:ha61i2$2cp2$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
I usually try to make myself feel smart by answering questions, not asking
them.
>>your game is apparently to make everyone else feel smart.
>
> I partially agree with what you said but IMO the game is not to make
> oneself look smart but to make oneself look the smartest and to nake
> oneself look the only smart one. As you said, a mugs game because these
> people try to look smarter than people they know nothing about.
Making oneself look good by demeaning others, the first resort of a person
out of original ideas.
dh
Why do you think it's ethically superior for people to be inconsiderate of
the lives of livestock that it is to be considerate of them? Why do you think
it's ethically superior for people to be anticonsiderate than it is for them to
be either considerate or inconsiderate?
(correct prediction: you are unable to give a decent reason why anyone should
feel that anticonsideration is most ethically superior.)
dh
You've shown me that you want to disbelieve in God and also persuade people
to believe that you're capable of considering the possibility that he does
exist, both at the same time.
dh
><dh@.> scribbled a lot of confused drivel
In contrast to that dishonesty I pointed out some things about you and
backed them up with your own quotes.
>Do you enjoy showing off what an illiterate boob you are?
I enjoy sharing your idiocy more than you like having it shared apparently.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:pv2lc5t6fo1604tq3...@4ax.com...
Why do you insist on repeating that question after I have explained to you
dozens of times that that is an equivocation?
You obviously don't get it. You should stick to fishing.
Dutch
It was a lot of dishonestly presented out of context drivel mixed with your
usual equivocations and made up nonsense that absolutely no-one is
interested in reading.
And I guarantee nobody did.
>>Do you enjoy showing off what an illiterate boob you are?
>
> I enjoy sharing your idiocy more than you like having it shared
> apparently.
You are getting stupider and more dishonest by the year. This is not
supposed to work that way.
dh
>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:15:15 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 02:15:29 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> scribbled a lot of confused drivel
>>
>> In contrast to that dishonesty I pointed out some things about you and
>> backed them up with your own quotes.
>
>It was a lot of dishonestly presented out of context drivel mixed
It showed that at one time you had some clue as to the significance of other
creatures' lives, even though now you claim to disagree with yourself about it.
>with your
>usual equivocations and made up nonsense that absolutely no-one is
>interested in reading.
>
>And I guarantee nobody did.
That's a lie since you did, and you have no idea whether anyone else did or
not. Hmm...maybe that makes it two lies in one?
>>>Do you enjoy showing off what an illiterate boob you are?
>>
>> I enjoy sharing your idiocy more than you like having it shared
>> apparently.
>
>You are getting stupider and more dishonest by the year.
That's yet another lie, since after all this time you still have no example
of me ever being dishonest about anything.
>This is not
>supposed to work that way.
You're lying about the way it's working. For example:
In this one post we have examples of you lying 3-4 times, while we still have no
examples of me lying about anything. I'm beginning to think you really don't
believe I should be able to point out your dishonesty so easily, clearly and
consistently because there are other people who are fooled by you, but I can and
do and that is something you hope to be able to overcome at some point. But
since I already know the truth, it's not likely I'll unlearn it at some point
regardless of your lyings.
dh
Because you've never provided a decent answer. Most of your "answers" have
been blatant lies, in fact.
>after I have explained to you
>dozens of times that that is an equivocation?
That's one of the blatant lies. Consideration is consideration, regardless
of how you try to lie that it is not.
>You obviously don't get it.
LOL! We both know I do, so that's another blatant lie. You're lying in an
attempt to support the misnomer over decent AW, and we know it.
>You should stick to fishing.
I haven't fished in over 30 years even though I spend a fair amount of time
on boats. I've fed fish, and caught a few by hand just for fun immediately
releasing them, and one jumped onto and caught itself on my kayak's sprayskirt
one day going up through some rapids, and I consider their lives too. In fact
just this morning I saw and considered the lives of a school of what looked like
young stripers... Maybe you think I should only consider the lives of wild fish
but nothing else? Or do you think I shouldn't even consider their lives? Even
though I don't fish I do consider the fact that many of the fish are raised by
humans in hatcheries specifically because of fishermen, and get to experience
lives of hopefully positive value as a result.
This is not a love song
You do that to make yourself feel smart? Are you not comfortable with how
smart you think you are that you have to try to make yourself feel smart?
No'one really knows how smart they are and no'one really knows how smart
anyone else is. IMO, smart is a relative term used by those who want to look
down on others. If you are smart enough to live your life then that's all
that matters.
>
>>>your game is apparently to make everyone else feel smart.
>>
>> I partially agree with what you said but IMO the game is not to make
>> oneself look smart but to make oneself look the smartest and to nake
>> oneself look the only smart one. As you said, a mugs game because these
>> people try to look smarter than people they know nothing about.
>
> Making oneself look good by demeaning others, the first resort of a person
> out of original ideas.
Usenet is full of those. :)
>
Dutch
> examples of me lying about anything.
Equivocation is dishonesty.
> I'm beginning to think
I wish
Dutch
>>You should stick to fishing.
>
> I haven't fished in over 30 years
You should go back to it, really.
Dutch
"This is not a love song" <P...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haivrj$56u$1...@news.albasani.net...
Partially.
> Are you not comfortable with how smart you think you are that you have to
> try to make yourself feel smart? No'one really knows how smart they are
> and no'one really knows how smart anyone else is. IMO, smart is a relative
> term used by those who want to look down on others. If you are smart
> enough to live your life then that's all that matters.
Didn't it make you feel smart to articulate those words of wisdom?
Tim McGaughy
No. It just keeps me from replying twice.
Tim McGaughy
>> great concern if it appeared that he's as stupid as you are.
>
> Briefly.
All the time.
Tim McGaughy
Tim McGaughy
Is not what I was doing. I expected you to defend your statement that
humans are 'special'. You decided instead to make yourself look stupid.
Tim McGaughy
> Too feel smart. :)
Heeheehee. Let's see that again.
> Too feel smart. :)
Dutch
Wow, I'm so impressed. Can I have your autograph?
Dutch
No, there are lots of legitimate things I don't understand, you just don't
appear to be one of them.
This is not a love song
Why?
>
>> Are you not comfortable with how smart you think you are that you have to
>> try to make yourself feel smart? No'one really knows how smart they are
>> and no'one really knows how smart anyone else is. IMO, smart is a
>> relative term used by those who want to look down on others. If you are
>> smart enough to live your life then that's all that matters.
>
> Didn't it make you feel smart to articulate those words of wisdom?
Nope. Just trying to get a point across. Take it or leave it.
Dutch
Bullshit, I replied in several different ways. "Humans are special" is a
very general statement, depending on what meaning you take from the word
"special", but one that most people would understand intuitively. The most
straightforward way to achieve an understanding between us in my view is for
you to respond to a couple of simple questions, which you refused to do.
Doing so I am confident would have made you realize that you believe humans
are special. Furthermore I gave you a reference to an author who has
written books in defense of so-called "speciesism", his name is Cohen.
> You decided instead to make yourself look stupid.
Projection. I put you on the spot with the questions I posed in my response
so you went into a snit, and you're still in it. If you had appeared to be
responding in good faith I would have tried harder to help you understand my
point of view.
Dutch
Tim McGaughy
Of course.
Tim McGaughy
I know.
Tim McGaughy
No. Your reply was essentially, "Because".
>> You decided instead to make yourself look stupid.
>
> Projection. I put you on the spot with the questions I posed
You did no such thing, and only a moron would think he could explain
himself by asking questions.
Tim McGaughy
What, you like too feel smart, to?
Can't say I'm surprised.
Dutch
Because its fun, and often challenging. I like to feel good about myself.
When I play a good round of golf or learn a song on the piano I feel a sense
of accomplishment, it's kind of like that. It's can be interesting for
others as well, but one can't rely on others enoying your contributions on
usenet, it's so competitive.
>
>>
>>> Are you not comfortable with how smart you think you are that you have
>>> to try to make yourself feel smart? No'one really knows how smart they
>>> are and no'one really knows how smart anyone else is. IMO, smart is a
>>> relative term used by those who want to look down on others. If you are
>>> smart enough to live your life then that's all that matters.
>>
>> Didn't it make you feel smart to articulate those words of wisdom?
>
> Nope. Just trying to get a point across.
Why? Just for my benefit, or don't you get some personal satisfaction in
articulating your wisdom?
> Take it or leave it.
I'll take it. I see your point, smart is a subjective, relative term, that's
true, but I am the only judge I care about, if I think I've done a good job
with a reply I am satisfied.
Dutch
A minute ago you knew that everything that I don't understand was a silly
game. Which is it?
Don't bother answering, I'm just playing along with your silly game.
I understand the silly game, you didn't like the way our initial interaction
went so you made it into a pissing contest... or you meant for it to be a
pissing contest all along.
Dutch
Do you usually refuse to respond and get all huffy when you are asked a
simple question? I didn't ask for a detailed explanation of your opinion, I
just asked if you ate meat. You could have just said yes or no, why didn't
you? I think clearly you had the assumption firmly in your mind that
'humans are *not* special' and that you had put me on the spot when you put
the question to me. When I asked if you ate meat you could see your
assumption starting to crumble so you went into damage control mode, thus
the silly games since.
> and only a moron would think he could explain himself by asking questions.
That was not going to be the end of the explanation, once you answered I was
going to follow up. I could have just made that assumption about you but I
did not think that would be fair. Also your refusal to reply threw up red
flags.
I also provided a link to an author on speciesism.
Note that the words "special" and "species" have the same root.
You claim to want to know what I mean when I say that humans are special. Is
that right or have I misinterpreted you?
If your question is simply "Why do you think humans are special?" then
before I can answer meaningfully we must reach a common understanding of the
word "special".
That's why a had to pose questions in response to yours, because we have no
basis for a meaningful communication. If you just want to continue the
pissing contest I can't promise it will hold my attention.
Dutch
Do you eet meet?
This is not a love song
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:eCpzm.37997$Bl2....@newsfe14.iad...
It certainly would be for me. I can't play golf. :) Mind you i'm fair on the
piano. If I want to be competative then I'll learn golf. ;)
>>
>>>
>>>> Are you not comfortable with how smart you think you are that you have
>>>> to try to make yourself feel smart? No'one really knows how smart they
>>>> are and no'one really knows how smart anyone else is. IMO, smart is a
>>>> relative term used by those who want to look down on others. If you are
>>>> smart enough to live your life then that's all that matters.
>>>
>>> Didn't it make you feel smart to articulate those words of wisdom?
>>
>> Nope. Just trying to get a point across.
>
> Why? Just for my benefit, or don't you get some personal satisfaction in
> articulating your wisdom?
For your benefit.
>
>> Take it or leave it.
>
> I'll take it. I see your point, smart is a subjective, relative term,
> that's true, but I am the only judge I care about, if I think I've done a
> good job with a reply I am satisfied.
Sounds good to me but that's just my opinion.
:)
This is not a love song
Good advice that. DH sounds the sort that gets uptight and fishing is
relaxing, theraputic even.
This is not a love song
They didn't get it in the back row. Well spotted BTW. :)
This is not a love song
No he didn't. He decided to point out that you are one of those very special
individuals that like to make himself look smart by making others look
stupid. That you don't know the people you are attempting to make look
stupid makes you look stupid. I'm not saying you are stupid but your posts
in this thread thusfar dio not help your case.
Dutch
He kindly confirmed it by his last reply to you.
This is not a love song
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:9ewzm.156562$nL7.1...@newsfe18.iad...
I noticed amd i've no intention of playing word games with him. I'll leave
him to his lonelyness.
>
dh
LOL!!! You told him that same lie in regards to your failure to admit which
of Goo's idiotic claims you agree with and which you don't. Do you think he
believed the lie either time, or both? Do you think he still believes it? Even
if he tells you distinctly that he does not believe it, do you think that he
secretly really does believe it? LOL....
dh
wrote:
He sure did. Several times, in fact.
>He decided to point out that you are one of those very special
>individuals that like to make himself look smart by making others look
>stupid.
He made himself look stupid--or more likely revealed his own stupidity--and
THEN he bitched about being overly challenged by being asked to explain his own
previous claims.
>That you don't know the people you are attempting to make look
>stupid makes you look stupid. I'm not saying you are stupid but your posts
>in this thread thusfar dio not help your case.
He simply asked the fool what makes him think humans are more "special" than
other animals, and the fool has worked way harder trying to get out of
attempting to answer than a normal person would by simply answering the
question. AFAIK he STILL has not provided a decent answer, after however many
months of being challenged repeatedly to do so.
dh
LOL! It would be cause for great concern no doubt. It would also be cause
for great concern if it appeared that you were as dishonest as he appears to be
in a number of ways...
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:9c27d5pfdps2fgpne...@4ax.com...
No he didn't.
dh
There have been countless times I've challenged him to explain something I
truly believed he could attempt to answer, only to see him fail completely to
provide anything at all...except maybe an insult as he fled from the challenge.
>I expected you to defend your statement that
>humans are 'special'.
I've learned and you may too over time, that you really can't expect him to
be able to answer even the simplest of questions, and that what little he does
attempt to answer is usually dishonest in one or more ways.
>You decided instead to make yourself look stupid.
It's often impossible to figure out whether he's honestly as stupid as he's
acting like he is, or if he's dishonestly pretending to be more stupid than he
actually is...
Virgil
Perhaps he is honestly pretending to be more stupid than he really is,
but is too stupid to be able to do it.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:njh7d5pca0ec226t0...@4ax.com...
The beauty of free speech is that he doesn't have to answer anything he
doesn't want to. And why would he want to ask a qiestion posted by a troll
such as yourself?
>>I expected you to defend your statement that
>>humans are 'special'.
>
> I've learned and you may too over time,
That no'one takes a troll seriously.
> acting like he is,
If he is then he's a better actor than you are.
Tim McGaughy
Open a dictionary and discover a new word.
"Sarcasm".
> I understand the silly game, you didn't like the way our initial
> interaction went so you made it into a pissing contest... or you meant
> for it to be a pissing contest all along.
What makes you think that?
Tim McGaughy
Did you ask a question?
> I didn't ask for a detailed explanation of your
> opinion, I just asked if you ate meat.
I'm curious why you can't justify your position unless I eat meat. It's
your argument, not mine, and one can certainly eat meat without
regarding one's self as special.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:fvadnS_a0OjJeFDX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> flower of romance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Too feel smart. :)
>>>>
>>>> Heeheehee. Let's see that again.
>>>>
>>>> > Too feel smart. :)
>>>
>>> I rest my case.
>>
>> What, you like too feel smart, to?
>>
>> Can't say I'm surprised.
>
> Do you eet meet?
Do you meet eet?
Tim McGaughy
I did not try to make a case. I merely questioned a statement.
Tim McGaughy
Yes. I do seem to recall that someone quit this conversation by loudly
declaring that I was in his killfile. Who was that again? Could that
have been Dutch?
Yes, I believe it was.
This is not a love song
And so making a case.
trying to make yourself look clever is what most people on usenet have been
doing since it began and in other public places before usenet began. What's
laughable is that every joker thinks they are the first and that they are
cleverer than anyone else even though they don't know anything about anyone
they are trying to look cleverer than. It's tired, boring and is unorigional
as attacking a poster's spelling. Oh wait, you did that too. If you want to
prove how smart you are then piss offf to another newsgroup and do it. If
you want to just be yourself then that's cool.
Dutch
Nice try.Try learning to accept when you trip over your own words.
>> I understand the silly game, you didn't like the way our initial
>> interaction went so you made it into a pissing contest... or you meant
>> for it to be a pissing contest all along.
>
> What makes you think that?
You asked "What makes you think that"? before asking what I meant by the
word special. Then you became non-responsive when I started asking simple
questions in response. It screamed troll. It still does.
Dutch
You know I did, you acknowledged it below.
>> I didn't ask for a detailed explanation of your opinion, I just asked if
>> you ate meat.
>
> I'm curious why you can't justify your position unless I eat meat.
Who said I can't? It was just a way I happened to choose at the moment. It
wasn't intended to start a pissing contest.
> It's your argument, not mine, and one can certainly eat meat without
> regarding one's self as special.
Not your "self", your species.
Do you eat other humans? Why not?
Dutch
I'm glad you characterized your contribution to this subject as "mere". I
could not have put it better.
Dutch
I'm not ready to give up on you but I'll put you back in if you ask nicely.
Dutch
And what is more laughable is that when you tell people that they are trying
to appear clever they go into denial.
dh
wrote:
He claims that taking the lives of animals raised for food
into consideration is in some unexplainable way not taking them
into consideration. Advocates of the gross misnomer "animal
rights" have been telling similar lies for decades, because
taking livestock animals' lives into consideration suggests that
providing them with decent lives of positive value might be
ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating livestock
completely, and their complete elimination is what those people
want.
dh
>
>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>news:IP6dnZSVi7dNq0vX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> I understand the silly game, you didn't like the way our initial
>>> interaction went so you made it into a pissing contest... or you meant
>>> for it to be a pissing contest all along.
>>
>> What makes you think that?
>
>You asked "What makes you think that"? before asking what I meant by the
>word special.
In what way do you think humans are "special"? Try not to
equivocate.
(prediction: the challenge to try to explain what he thinks he
thinks he's trying to talk about will again reduce him to a
sniveling failure)
dh
<tee...@toast.net> wrote:
And he's certainly all over the place with his bullshit about
humans being "special". Not long ago he lied that he has clearly
explained it a number of times--though he's been unable to
produce any examples of that--and then recently he bitched at you
for doing something before he did explain which exposes the fact
that he STILL has not.........this:
dh
You only said that in an attempt to appear clever.
dh
Nope, but it is amusing for one thing that you think you're
the first, and for another it's possibly even more amusing that
you believe everyone else thinks they are too.
>and that they are
>cleverer than anyone else even though they don't know anything about anyone
>they are trying to look cleverer than. It's tired, boring and is unorigional
>as attacking a poster's spelling. Oh wait, you did that too. If you want to
>prove how smart you are then piss offf to another newsgroup
LOL!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:38:15 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>news:IP6dnZSVi7dNq0vX...@posted.toastnet...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I understand the silly game, you didn't like the way our initial
>>>> interaction went so you made it into a pissing contest... or you meant
>>>> for it to be a pissing contest all along.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that?
>>
>>You asked "What makes you think that"? before asking what I meant by the
>>word special.
>
> In what way do you think humans are "special"? Try not to
> equivocate.
If you knew what equivocate meant you would not continue to equivocate on
the word "consideration".
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:3ggmd5hq1a0sv9otk...@4ax.com...
You two need to get a room.
Dutch
Was I successful?
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:kggmd51muo72krivp...@4ax.com...
People that use, "but it is amusing" only do so to try and make themselves
look clever, as you are so desperately trying to do on this newgroup. No'one
who replies to you thinks you look clever. Perhaps you should try aomething
else.
>
>>and that they are
>>cleverer than anyone else even though they don't know anything about
>>anyone
>>they are trying to look cleverer than. It's tired, boring and is
>>unorigional
>>as attacking a poster's spelling. Oh wait, you did that too. If you want
>>to
>>prove how smart you are then piss offf to another newsgroup
>
> LOL!
What? Is that it? No whitty retort? Are you worried that any retort you
come up with will be immidiately spotted for what another attempted
trolling? Or are you one of those unorigional losers that thinks "LOL!" wins
arguments?
This is not a love song
dh
>> And he's certainly all over the place with his bullshit about
>>humans being "special". Not long ago he lied that he has clearly
>>explained it a number of times--though he's been unable to
>>produce any examples of that--and then recently he bitched at you
>>for doing something before he did explain which exposes the fact
>>that he STILL has not.........this:
>>
>>"You asked "What makes you think that"? before asking what I
>>meant by the word special."
>
>You two need to get a room.
It's amusing that a couple of people pointing out how
dishonest you are triggers your interest in homosexuality. Soon
it's likely to arouse your obsession with child sex slavery...
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nope, but it is amusing for one thing that you think you're
>>the first, and for another it's possibly even more amusing that
>>you believe everyone else thinks they are too.
>
>People that use, "but it is amusing" only do so to try and make themselves
>look clever,
LOL! You are an amusing one even though you are dishonest.
>as you are so desperately trying to do on this newgroup. No'one
>who replies to you thinks you look clever.
I don't think you look clever. How much does that bother you?
>Perhaps you should try aomething
>else.
I do what I do. So do you.
>>>and that they are
>>>cleverer than anyone else even though they don't know anything about anyone
>>>they are trying to look cleverer than. It's tired, boring and is unorigional
>>>as attacking a poster's spelling. Oh wait, you did that too. If you want to
>>>prove how smart you are then piss offf to another newsgroup
>>
>> LOL!
>
>What? Is that it? No whitty retort? Are you worried that any retort you
>come up with will be immidiately spotted for what another attempted
>trolling?
If you want to go into detail about it then explain which
particular newsgroup you think a person should post to if they
want to prove how smart they are, or whatever...
>Or are you one of those unorigional losers that thinks "LOL!" wins
>arguments?
LOL!
dh
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:l8rud59gh25gevr9u...@4ax.com...
You mean where I suggest that "considering the lives" implies that parents
who raise child sex slaves should receive leniency because children get to
experience some life they would not otherwise have?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:p9rud5li8th4a64k2...@4ax.com...
Don't you care if I equivocate? Would you know if I did?
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d9rud5lphekec915t...@4ax.com...
>>as you are so desperately trying to do on this newgroup. No'one
>>who replies to you thinks you look clever.
>
> I don't think you look clever. How much does that bother you?
>
>>Perhaps you should try aomething
>>else.
>
> I do what I do. So do you.
>
>>>>and that they are
>>>>cleverer than anyone else even though they don't know anything about
>>>>anyone
>>>>they are trying to look cleverer than. It's tired, boring and is
>>>>unorigional
>>>>as attacking a poster's spelling. Oh wait, you did that too. If you want
>>>>to
>>>>prove how smart you are then piss offf to another newsgroup
>>>
>>> LOL!
Are you one of those unorigional losers that thinks "LOL!" wins
arguments?
>>
>>What? Is that it? No whitty retort? Are you worried that any retort you
>>come up with will be immidiately spotted for what another attempted
>>trolling?
>
> If you want to go into detail about it then explain which
> particular newsgroup you think a person should post to if they
> want to prove how smart they are, or whatever...
alt.pretentious.arsehole.
If that group does not exist then you shuld start it. In a week it will be
full of thousands of people who all think they are the cleverist on there,
without knowing anything about anyone else on there.
>
>>Or are you one of those unorigional losers that thinks "LOL!" wins
>>arguments?
>
> LOL!
So you are one of those unorigional losers that thinks "LOL!" wins
arguments!
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:l8rud59gh25gevr9u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:49:47 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:27:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:49:50 -0500, Tim McGaughy
>>><tee...@toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would also be cause
>>>>> for great concern if it appeared that you were as dishonest as he
>>>>> appears to be
>>>>> in a number of ways...
>>>>
>>>>Yes. I do seem to recall that someone quit this conversation by loudly
>>>>declaring that I was in his killfile. Who was that again? Could that
>>>>have been Dutch?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I believe it was.
>>>
>>> And he's certainly all over the place with his bullshit about
>>>humans being "special". Not long ago he lied that he has clearly
>>>explained it a number of times--though he's been unable to
>>>produce any examples of that--and then recently he bitched at you
>>>for doing something before he did explain which exposes the fact
>>>that he STILL has not.........this:
>>>
>>>"You asked "What makes you think that"? before asking what I
>>>meant by the word special."
>>
>>You two need to get a room.
>
> It's amusing
People that use, "but it is amusing" only do so to try and make themselves
look clever, as you are so desperately trying to do on this newgroup. No'one
who replies to you thinks you look clever. Perhaps you should try aomething
else.
dh
Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>Would you know if I did?
Try it and see. Oh that's right, you can do anything with it
at all, as usual.
dh
It is taken into consideration, and you yourself have claimed
that child sex slaves live lives of perfect happiness for at
least the first part of their lives. If you now want to say their
lives should be given no consideration, do you think that's also
true of their families who manage to survive because of the
child/children they sell as slaves?
Why do you think we should think of raising livestock and raising
human sex slaves in the same way? So far after all these years
there still appears to be absolutely no reason at all, yet you
still want people to do it. Can't you give any reason why at all?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1811e5lfmi201vqkv...@4ax.com...
I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject has been
discussed at length on aaev.
>>Would you know if I did?
>
> Try it and see. Oh that's right, you can do anything with it
> at all, as usual.
I already know, you don't know an equivocation when you use one, so how
could you recognize one?