Vegetarian Discussion: My Moral Evaluation Of People Who Approve Of Using Someone's Mental Health History As A Means Of Denigrating Them

My Moral Evaluation Of People Who Approve Of Using Someone's Mental Health History As A Means Of Denigrating Them
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

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

Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)

D*@.
2008-08-27 12:10:52 EST
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Aug 27, 4:48 am, Goo wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 4:37 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 27, 4:25 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 26, 10:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 26, 8:49 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Aug 25, 5:42 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > I am proud to take a militant stand against the stigma in our society
>>
>> > > > > Fuck off, you pompous, self-important shitbag...and psychotic.
>>
>> > > > Hey Rudy, can you analyse for us what led you to take up the hobby of
>> > > > trying to annoy people and waste their time on the Internet?
>>
>> > > No, because that never happened, you fucking psycho.
>>
>> > Talk of psychosis is of course highly ironic in this context.
>>
>> No, not really - you're a psychotic.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Hey, Ball, you know how I keep mentioning that I'm not a psychotic,
>I'm someone who was psychotic six years ago, I was just curious if you
>really are so brain-damaged as to fail to grasp this elementary point?
>Do you do it because you cherish a belief that behaving as though you
>are cognitively impaired in public will irritate me, or are you really
>this horrifyingly stupid?

It always comes down to that with the Goos...is Goo/"Dutch"/"Derek"
really stupid enough to believe all the absurd things he/they pretend to
believe? If so then he/they are horrifyingly stupid as you point out since
it's rather disturbing to think any functional adult(s) could be so incredibly
stupid. But someone who is that stupid would most likely also be too
stupid to make much use of a computer. That suggests Goo/... really
is not as stupid as he/they want it to appear they are, so the question
arrises: Why does he/they want people to believe he/they are stupid
enough to believe some/many of the things he/they insist he/they
does/do believe? Why would anyone???

>Anyway, to get back to the question which you snipped. When you first
>decided to spend half your life wasting webspace with your diarrhoea,
>was it more influenced by your awareness that you will never in your
>entire life manage to give a woman an orgasm, or by your difficulty in
>coping with the amount of contempt your mother has for you and the
>extent to which she wishes she had had an abortion?

Goo attempts to support elimination in part by posing--very poorly--as
a most inconsiderate, childish, insane, dishonest, stupid, ignorant, etc...
opponent of the misnomer, trying to create a bad impression of true
opponents by his own dishonest "example". The Goober also does it
more directly by maniacally opposing the suggestion that people develop
more appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock:

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". They don't because there is no
alternative. They don't because they don't care
that they "get to experience life". They don't
because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo

"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo

etc......

Derek
2008-08-27 13:33:38 EST
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I am proud to take a militant stand against the stigma in our society
>against people who have experienced mental illness. I believe that
>people who have experienced mental illness have as much inherent
>value and dignity as any other human being, and that they are just as
>deserving of respect.

Yes, but how much trust can we place on someone who is
prone to "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."?

"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://tinyurl.com/6cs7vq

>It is my position that if you gave a high Google star rating to any
>post of Derek's in which he labelled me as a "psycho" or otherwise
>tried to use my mental health history or quotations of my discussion
>of it as a means of denigrating me,

I haven't used your mental illness as a means to denigrate you.
I've merely said that because of it I cannot take your view of
the world seriously, and that you must respect my right to reject
your demands that I discuss the moral principles behind my
lifestyle choices, so stop lying.

>then you are a worthless piece of
>filth unfit for assocation with decent and civilized human beings.

If your stand was a genuine one you would've made one against
Pearl who often refers to others who beat her as psychos, but
no, you won't do anything of the sort because she hasn't made a
challenge against your fall-back position as an animal welfarist.

>I challenge you to publicly come forth and say you did it so that
>we can have a frank exchange of views about each other.

You've just referred to these people as "worthless piece[s] of
filth unfit for association with decent and civilized human beings",
and yet you're challenging them to come forward so that you
"can have a frank exchange of views about each other." You're
quite insane, psycho.

>If no response is forthcoming, rest assured that you will all be
>publicly labelled as pitiful craven cowards.

No. If they choose not to respond, it won't be because they
are craven cowards; it would be because they don't think it's
worth their while arguing their point of view against a psycho's
point of view.

>You all know who you are.

Calm down, psycho. You're going to hurt someone if you don't.

Rupert
2008-08-27 18:20:38 EST
On Aug 27, 5:33 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I am proud to take a militant stand against the stigma in our society
> >against people who have experienced mental illness. I believe that
> >people who have experienced mental illness have as much inherent
> >value and dignity as any other human being, and that they are just as
> >deserving of respect.
>
> Yes, but how much trust can we place on someone who is
> prone to "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."?
>

Trust? You're talking about my trustworthiness now? I would say I am
fairly trustworthy. I have discussed these experiences of mine with my
manager in the pub and he was still prepared to recommend that I be
offered a second contract.

If you're talking about my ability to produce intellectually serious
stuff, I would say there is evidence of that, too.

http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis8.pdf

You're aware that John Nash, who had my condition, did important
mathematical research and won the Nobel Prize for Economics?

I am living proof that the stereotypes about people with mental
illness are false. You are trying to contribute to stigma by saying
that someone who had such experiences six years ago is not to be taken
seriously and not to be trusted. No decent person is going to take
*you* seriously. All you achieve is to prove yourself to be a
worthless moral toad.

Fuck off, worthless piece of filth.

> "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://tinyurl.com/6cs7vq
>
> >It is my position that if you gave a high Google star rating to any
> >post of Derek's in which he labelled me as a "psycho" or otherwise
> >tried to use my mental health history or quotations of my discussion
> >of it as a means of denigrating me,
>
> I haven't used your mental illness as a means to denigrate you.

That's very funny, Derek. What was that thing you called me?
"Psychotic liar"?

> I've merely said that because of it I cannot take your view of
> the world seriously,

Which is pitiful ignorance and stupidity.

> and that you must respect my right to reject
> your demands that I discuss the moral principles behind my
> lifestyle choices, so stop lying.
>

You've said a lot more than that, stupid liar and morally disgusting
toad.

It doesn't matter anyway. Saying "I refuse to engage in conversation
with you, because I don't think I can take you seriously, because you
have a mental health history" is already morally disgusting enough.

You should actually be grateful that I was prepared to listen to you
and take *you* seriously, Derek. I was being very nice to you.

> >then you are a worthless piece of
> >filth unfit for assocation with decent and civilized human beings.
>
> If your stand was a genuine one you would've made one against
> Pearl who often refers to others who beat her as psychos, but
> no, you won't do anything of the sort because she hasn't made a
> challenge against your fall-back position as an animal welfarist.
>

It's nothing to do with any debate about animal ethics, stupid clown,
and you have not made a "challenge", you have declined to express your
views.

Has Pearl ever used "psycho" as a term of abuse? Show me where.

Antisocial personality disorder is a bit of a borderline case, you
could have an argument about whether it should be in the DSM-V. It's
reasonable to hold critical attitudes towards people with antisocial
personality disorder.

Pearl shouldn't engage in amateur psychiatric diagnosis, no.


> >I challenge you to publicly come forth and say you did it so that
> >we can have a frank exchange of views about each other.
>
> You've just referred to these people as "worthless piece[s] of
> filth unfit for association with decent and civilized human beings",
> and yet you're challenging them to come forward so that you
> "can have a frank exchange of views about each other."

Yes, what of it?

> You're
> quite insane, psycho.
>

At least I'm not a worthless moral toad like you. I'm also a hell of a
lot more intelligent.

> >If no response is forthcoming, rest assured that you will all be
> >publicly labelled as pitiful craven cowards.
>
> No. If they choose not to respond, it won't be because they
> are craven cowards; it would be because they don't think it's
> worth their while arguing their point of view against a psycho's
> point of view.
>

If they hold on to their anonymity it will be craven cowardice.

> >You all know who you are.
>
> Calm down, psycho. You're going to hurt someone if you don't.

No, I'm not. It's Ball who fantasizes about violence.

If you don't think it's worthwhile engaging with a "psycho", then fuck
off, worthless piece of filth. No-one values your benighted opinion.
Crawl away, pitiful worm.

Derek
2008-08-28 08:20:09 EST
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:20:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 27, 5:33 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I am proud to take a militant stand against the stigma in our society
>> >against people who have experienced mental illness. I believe that
>> >people who have experienced mental illness have as much inherent
>> >value and dignity as any other human being, and that they are just as
>> >deserving of respect.
>>
>> Yes, but how much trust can we place on someone who is
>> prone to "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."?
>
>Trust? You're talking about my trustworthiness now?

Of course. How can I or anyone place any trust
in the ravings of a psychotic liar like yourself?

>> "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://tinyurl.com/6cs7vq
>>
>> >It is my position that if you gave a high Google star rating to any
>> >post of Derek's in which he labelled me as a "psycho" or otherwise
>> >tried to use my mental health history or quotations of my discussion
>> >of it as a means of denigrating me,
>>
>> I haven't used your mental illness as a means to denigrate you.
>
>That's very funny, Derek. What was that thing you called me?
>"Psychotic liar"?

You are psychotic, and you're a proven liar - ergo
you're a psychotic liar. You said that you had quit
this forum last night, but here you are, proving to
all that you're a liar, psycho. You see, this is why
I can never take you seriously.

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-29 21:59:29 EST
On Aug 25, 5:42 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [load of shit]

Your pronouns do not agree in number, rupie. Having said "Someone's",
rupie, you cannot then conclude with "Them". Sorry.

Rupert
2008-08-29 22:17:30 EST
On Aug 30, 1:59 am, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 5:42 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [load of shit]
>
> Your pronouns do not agree in number, rupie. Having said "Someone's",
> rupie, you cannot then conclude with "Them". Sorry.

I'm having difficulty locating the post to which you're replying. I
was probably using "them" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. If
this offends you, I am terribly regretful and remorseful and
mortified, almost to the point of being slightly interested.

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-30 14:42:59 EST
On Aug 29, 7:17 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 1:59 am, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 5:42 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > [load of shit]
>
> > Your pronouns do not agree in number, rupie. Having said "Someone's",
> > rupie, you cannot then conclude with "Them". Sorry.
>
> I'm having difficulty locating the post to which you're replying.

It's the entire fucking thread, you idiot.


> was probably using "them" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

Which is *wrong* and illiterate.
Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)


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