Vegetarian Discussion: Boobs Whiffed Off.........as Usual.

Boobs Whiffed Off.........as Usual.
Posts: 112

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-27 18:49:14 EST

Rupert said:

(p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
right against a set of moral
agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
financially complicit in them
acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
commiting
any comparable moral
wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
that moral agent is a moral
bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."


Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.





Rupert
2008-07-27 19:35:55 EST
On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
> Rupert said:
>
> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> right against a set of moral
> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> financially complicit in them
> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> commiting
> any comparable moral
> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> that moral agent is a moral
> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.

Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
he believes this proposition or not.

Rupert
2008-07-28 23:56:05 EST
On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert said:
>
> > (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> > right against a set of moral
> > agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> > financially complicit in them
> > acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> > commiting
> > any comparable moral
> > wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> > than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> > becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> > electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> > complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> > that moral agent is a moral
> > bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
> > Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
>
> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ahem. Ball? We're still waiting.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-29 00:07:07 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rupert said:
>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>> right against a set of moral
>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>> financially complicit in them
>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>> commiting
>>> any comparable moral
>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
>> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
>> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ahem.

Replying to yourself again, queer?

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-29 06:55:22 EST
On Jul 29, 2:07 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Rupert said:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>> right against a set of moral
> >>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>> financially complicit in them
> >>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>> commiting
> >>> any comparable moral
> >>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
> >> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
> >> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ahem.
>
> Replying to yourself again, queer?-


Ready to hide under your bed again, Boobs?

(p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
right against a set of moral
agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
financially complicit in them
acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
commiting
any comparable moral
wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
that moral agent is a moral
bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."



Dutch
2008-07-29 07:12:39 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:07 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rupert said:
>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>>>> right against a set of moral
>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>>>> financially complicit in them
>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>>>> commiting
>>>>> any comparable moral
>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>>>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
>>>> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
>>>> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Ahem.
>> Replying to yourself again, queer?-
>
>
> Ready to hide under your bed again, Boobs?
>
> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> right against a set of moral
> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> financially complicit in them
> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> commiting
> any comparable moral
> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> that moral agent is a moral
> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."

The analogy doesn't work, all governments commit immoral acts. The best
recourse a citizen has is to work for political change. Unlike ARAs who
condemn others despite their own dirty hands, he also refrains from
attacking the morals of individuals based on the actions of *their*
governments. A believer in animal rights however has doable options that
will have the required effect of eliminating his hypocrisy.


D*@.
2008-07-29 08:35:37 EST
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:49:14 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <anybody23@canada.com> wrote:

>
>Rupert said:
>
>(p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>right against a set of moral
>agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>financially complicit in them
>acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>commiting
>any comparable moral
>wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>that moral agent is a moral
>bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
>
>Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.

Did he leave a stinking diaper in his slimy retreat, like he
usually does?

D*@.
2008-07-29 08:36:59 EST
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:35:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>> Rupert said:
>>
>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>> right against a set of moral
>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>> financially complicit in them
>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>> commiting
>> any comparable moral
>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>> that moral agent is a moral
>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>
>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
>
>Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
>he believes this proposition or not.

Goo probably does believe it, while at the same time
disbelieving it and being unable to figure out how he
thinks he thinks he disagrees with himself. The poor
confused, bewildered Goober.

Rupert
2008-07-29 17:14:22 EST
On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:07 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Rupert said:
> >>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>>>> right against a set of moral
> >>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>>>> financially complicit in them
> >>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>>>> commiting
> >>>>> any comparable moral
> >>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>>>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >>>>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
> >>>> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
> >>>> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Ahem.
> >> Replying to yourself again, queer?-
>
> > Ready to hide under your bed again, Boobs?
>
> > (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> > right against a set of moral
> > agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> > financially complicit in them
> > acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> > commiting
> > any comparable moral
> > wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> > than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> > becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> > electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> > complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> > that moral agent is a moral
> > bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
> The analogy doesn't work, all governments commit immoral acts. The best
> recourse a citizen has is to work for political change. Unlike ARAs who
> condemn others despite their own dirty hands, he also refrains from
> attacking the morals of individuals based on the actions of *their*
> governments. A believer in animal rights however has doable options that
> will have the required effect of eliminating his hypocrisy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's Ball's job to reply, not yours.

Yes, I have options whereby I can afford financially supporting plant-
based agriculture; but Ball has options whereby he can stop paying
taxes which fund a criminal war.

You're advocating one of two responses:

(a) Agree that when you voluntarily remain in a country and have tax
extorted from you to fund criminal acts, when you have the option of
doing otherwise, you are financially complicit in the acts, but deny
(p1), saying that there is an exception in the case of governmental
action
(b) Deny that when you have tax extorted from you you are financially
complicit in what it is used for

Either of those responses deserves some discussion, but if Ball wants
to make one of those I want him to specify which one he wants to go
with.

Dutch
2008-07-30 02:45:39 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2:07 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 28, 7:35 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 6:49 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <anybod...@canada.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rupert said:
>>>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>>>>>> right against a set of moral
>>>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>>>>>> financially complicit in them
>>>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>>>>>> commiting
>>>>>>> any comparable moral
>>>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>>>>>> Boobs read that and ran and hid under his bed......again.
>>>>>> Indeed, I would be interested in some comment from Ball about whether
>>>>>> he believes this proposition or not.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Ahem.
>>>> Replying to yourself again, queer?-
>>> Ready to hide under your bed again, Boobs?
>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>> right against a set of moral
>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>> financially complicit in them
>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>> commiting
>>> any comparable moral
>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>> The analogy doesn't work, all governments commit immoral acts. The best
>> recourse a citizen has is to work for political change. Unlike ARAs who
>> condemn others despite their own dirty hands, he also refrains from
>> attacking the morals of individuals based on the actions of *their*
>> governments. A believer in animal rights however has doable options that
>> will have the required effect of eliminating his hypocrisy.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's Ball's job to reply, not yours.

Not my concern, this is a public forum.
>
> Yes, I have options whereby I can afford financially supporting plant-
> based agriculture; but Ball has options whereby he can stop paying
> taxes which fund a criminal war.

That's a clear tu quoque fallacy.

> You're advocating one of two responses:
>
> (a) Agree that when you voluntarily remain in a country and have tax
> extorted from you to fund criminal acts, when you have the option of
> doing otherwise, you are financially complicit in the acts,

Complicity is complicity, I don't understand why you
insist on using the adjective "financial". Yes, we are
all complicit, indirectly, but so are the citizens of
every country. Every government is guilty of some
moral malfeasance. Moving to another country doesn't
solve the problem.

but deny
> (p1), saying that there is an exception in the case of governmental
> action

It's not so much an exception as a suspension of
rights as we usually think of them. War by it's very
nature is the business of killing other people, some
of them civilians. The usual rules don't apply. One
could excuse murder by comparing with the act of a
soldier in that case.

You could make a case not involving war per se that
might be more compelling. The analogy is interesting
but I think that it becomes less convincing the more
one examines the details.


> (b) Deny that when you have tax extorted from you you are financially
> complicit in what it is used for
>
> Either of those responses deserves some discussion, but if Ball wants
> to make one of those I want him to specify which one he wants to go
> with.

I'm not interested in what you want him to do, or vise
versa.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


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