Vegetarian Discussion: Rupie Concedes

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-02 04:04:01 EST
You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. I showed
conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
waving it weakly for a few minutes.

What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
position of ignorance, anyway? I guess it must have been your usual
partisanship.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-02 12:19:03 EST
On Jul 2, 6:04 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> .  I showed conclusively that I'm fuckwitted.


and shrivelled penised.


Rupert
2008-07-02 17:30:51 EST
On Jul 2, 4:04 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue.  I showed
> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> position of ignorance, anyway?  I guess it must have been your usual
> partisanship.

Well, the title of the thread is correct, I did concede that you had
proved your point.

My perspective on what happened is that you claimed for a number of
years that some vegans present an "inefficiency" argument entirely
separate from any environmental concerns or concerns about global food
distribution. I waited a number of years for you to produce a citation
to support this contention. You finally got around to meeting your
obligation to do this, and I then politely conceded that you had
proved your point. And yes, I always agreed that this argument was a
poor one, I just wasn't convinced that anyone made it, and it was your
job to show me this, which you have now finally done. You see this as
being somehow weak, well, you're entitled to take that view.

Note that this is in contrast to when I proved that "axiomatisable" is
a real word, and you just stopped commenting on the issue, hoping that
eventually people would get bored and stop talking about it.

Rupert
2008-07-03 02:11:58 EST
On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue.  I showed
> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> position of ignorance, anyway?  I guess it must have been your usual
> partisanship.

Just to comment on this one more time, Ball. As soon as you provided
actual citations to support your contention, as was your obligation, I
immediately conceded your point and congratulated you on genuinely
winning for a change, as opposed to merely deluding yourself into
thinking you had won. I personally don't see this as being in any way
weak. On the other hand, when I conclusively proved that
"axiomatisable" was a real word, you comically continued to insist
that it wasn't in sheer desperation, and then fell silent about the
issue hoping that eventually people would get tired of talking about
it. That's the difference between being a real man and being a comical
coward.

What possessed me not to concede that some people made the
"inefficiency" argument that you were talking about? I'd never seen
anyone make it before. No shame in that. It's your job to show that
some people make it.

It doesn't appear in the text Pearl posted. There's a sentence in the
first paragraph saying "growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world". The principle of charity requires
you to interpret that as an environmental argument, and indeed I still
think that's most likely what was actually intended.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 02:17:15 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. I showed
>> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>>
>> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
>> position of ignorance, anyway? I guess it must have been your usual
>> partisanship.
>
> Just to comment on this one more time,

[snip worthless shit hemorrhage]

Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
sufficient.

Rupert
2008-07-03 02:33:25 EST
On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue.  I showed
> >> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> >> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >> position of ignorance, anyway?  I guess it must have been your usual
> >> partisanship.
>
> > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> sufficient.

Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?

When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
lame?

You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-03 02:35:30 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. I showed
>>>> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
>>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
>>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
>>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>>>> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
>>>> position of ignorance, anyway? I guess it must have been your usual
>>>> partisanship.
>>> Just to comment on this one more time,
>> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>>
>> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
>> sufficient.
>
> Still think

Yes. You should try it.

Rupert
2008-07-03 03:27:08 EST
On Jul 2, 11:35 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue.  I showed
> >>>> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> >>>> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> >>>> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> >>>> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
> >>>> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> >>>> position of ignorance, anyway?  I guess it must have been your usual
> >>>> partisanship.
> >>> Just to comment on this one more time,
> >> [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> >> Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> >> sufficient.
>
> > Still think
>
> Yes.  You should try it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That wouldn't be just the tiniest bit lame, would it, Ball?

As soon as you *finally*, after all these years, got round to
presenting some actual evidence for your claim that some vegans make
an argument purely based on "efficiency", I conceded your point like a
real man.

Now, what's your current position on mathematical language and
dictionaries?

Watch him snip my text like the pitiful coward he is.

Clown.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-03 07:03:08 EST
On Jul 3, 4:33 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:17 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 1:04 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> > >> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue.  I showed
> > >> conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
> > >> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> > >> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> > >> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> > >> What the fuck possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> > >> position of ignorance, anyway?  I guess it must have been your usual
> > >> partisanship.
>
> > > Just to comment on this one more time,
>
> > [snip worthless shit hemorrhage]
>
> > Your first comment, acknowledging the lame and feckless concession, was
> > sufficient.
>
> Still think "axiomatisable" is not a real word, Ball?
>
> When you snip and evade this question, will that be just a tiny bit
> lame?
>
> You finally got around to adequately arguing your point, and when I
> saw an adequate argument I agreed with you. Nothing lame there.-


Poor Boobs. He finally gets something half-assed right and you concede
that point to him and he simply can't handle it. He can't just accept
it, he has to keep on arguing because he thinks he can replay his
solitary once-in-a-lifetime victory over and over and over and over.

He's never been right about anything before you know.



D*@.
2008-07-03 09:53:26 EST
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. I showed
>conclusively that fuckwitted "vegans" see their bullshit "inefficiency"
>argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
>environmental argument

Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not Goo, but they
don't care about either one anyway. They are opposed
to eating meat because they don't happen to like it,
and that's all there is to it. They are opposed to it when
it's good for the environment, good for wildlife, and
more efficient than growing crops. They don't care!
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron