Vegetarian Discussion: When Is It Ok To Lie?

When Is It Ok To Lie?
Posts: 36

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Joe Leo
2005-11-25 14:47:31 EST
Here's when it's ok to lie:
http://www.WhenIsItOKToLie.com

- Joe


D*@.
2005-11-26 16:20:01 EST
The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
whenever the truth would work against their elimination
objectives.

Dutch
2005-11-26 19:31:58 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
> objectives.

You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife as a
viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest example.



D*@.
2005-11-27 12:49:16 EST
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:31:58 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>> objectives.
>
>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife as a
>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest example.

LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals YOU/"ARAs"
want to promote life for instead of livestock, and why. I obviously give
it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.

Leif Erikson
2005-11-27 13:05:40 EST
dh@. lied:

Why would you ask that question, Fuckwit? You lie in
every post.

Dutch
2005-11-27 16:33:18 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:ncsjo1tgi3iq9um1jt9l0jjdqpblsk87um@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:31:58 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>>> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>>> objectives.
>>
>>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife as
>>a
>>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest example.
>
> LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals

That's a weak diversionary tactic, "which particular wild animals" is
irrelevant.

> YOU/"ARAs"
> want to promote life for [wildlife] instead of livestock,

No, I want both to exist, you think only livestock deserve this "special
consideration" from which you get so much gratification. You can't explain
why you should give "special consideration" to livestock but not wildlife.

> and why. I obviously give
> it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
> can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
> you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
> provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
> thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.

I listed a number of wildlife species that would flourish in greater numbers
if we didn't raise livestock. You can't explain why we ought to "consider"
livestock that exist because we consume meat, but not use the same logic to
consider the wildlife that would exist if we didn't.



D*@.
2005-11-30 11:10:29 EST
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:33:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:ncsjo1tgi3iq9um1jt9l0jjdqpblsk87um@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:31:58 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>>>> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>>>> objectives.
>>>
>>>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>>>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife as
>>>a
>>>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest example.
>>
>> LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals
>
>That's a weak diversionary tactic, "which particular wild animals" is
>irrelevant.

LOL!!! Since you can suggest NO particular wild animals to consider,
there are NONE to consider. So we are left with only the livestock's
lives to consider.

>> YOU/"ARAs"
>> want to promote life for [wildlife] instead of livestock,
>
>No, I want both to exist, you think only livestock deserve this "special
>consideration"

That's a lie you god damned lying sack of shit. I've asked YOU
several times which wildlife we should consider, and YOU never
can explain, and then you tell a lie like this!!!

>from which you get so much gratification. You can't explain
>why you should give "special consideration" to livestock but not wildlife.

Which wildlife you lying sack of shit??? And WHY think about these
mysterious wild animals that you can tell us absolutetly nothing about?
And HOW can we think about them, when we don't even know wtf
"they" are??????

>> and why. I obviously give
>> it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
>> can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
>> you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
>> provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
>> thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.
>
>I listed a number of wildlife species that would flourish in greater numbers
>if we didn't raise livestock.

Since you can't present the list, I can only believe you're lying again.

>You can't explain why we ought to "consider"
>livestock that exist because we consume meat, but not use the same logic to
>consider the wildlife that would exist if we didn't.

USE the same damn logic! To begin with we have to know WHICH
potential future wildlife YOU want us to think about! But YOU don't know,
making it impossible for US to consider "them".

Leif Erikson
2005-11-30 11:42:47 EST
You belive it ALWAYS is okay to lie, Fuckwit, because
whenever we see "dh@. wrote", we know that lies follow.


dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:33:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:ncsjo1tgi3iq9um1jt9l0jjdqpblsk87um@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:31:58 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>>>>>whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>>>>>objectives.
>>>>
>>>>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>>>>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife as
>>>>a
>>>>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest example.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals
>>
>>That's a weak diversionary tactic, "which particular wild animals" is
>>irrelevant.
>
>
> LOL!!! Since you can suggest NO particular wild animals to consider,
> there are NONE to consider. So we are left with only the livestock's
> lives to consider.

WHY do you consider it important that livestock exist,
Fuckwit? Stop with the stupid dodge about "particular"
animals; you don't cause "particular" livestock to
exist, either.

Answer the question, lying Fuckwit: WHY do you want
livestock to exist, other than to provide products for you?



>>>YOU/"ARAs"
>>>want to promote life for [wildlife] instead of livestock,
>>
>>No, I want both to exist, you think only livestock deserve this "special
>>consideration"
>
>
> That's a lie you god damned lying sack of shit

It's not a lie, Fuckwit, and your temper tantrum proves
it. You DO want to give special consideration ONLY to
livestock, and you can't or won't say why.


>>from which you get so much gratification. You can't explain
>>why you should give "special consideration" to livestock but not wildlife.
>
>
> Which wildlife you lying sack of shit???

It doesn't matter, Fuckwit - you can't say "which"
livestock, either.

WHY do you want livestock to exist, Fuckwit?


>>>and why. I obviously give
>>>it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
>>>can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
>>>you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
>>>provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
>>>thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.
>>
>>I listed a number of wildlife species that would flourish in greater numbers
>>if we didn't raise livestock.
>
>
> Since you can't present the list,

You read his list already, you time-wasting shitbag.


>>You can't explain why we ought to "consider"
>>livestock that exist because we consume meat, but not use the same logic to
>>consider the wildlife that would exist if we didn't.
>
>
> USE the same damn logic!

YOU use some logic first, Fuckwit. Explain WHY you
want livestock to exist.

Dutch
2005-12-01 03:40:34 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:33:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>>>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>>>>> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>>>>> objectives.
>>>>
>>>>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>>>>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife
>>>>as
>>>>a
>>>>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest
>>>>example.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals
>>
>>That's a weak diversionary tactic, "which particular wild animals" is
>>irrelevant.
>
> LOL!!! Since you can suggest NO particular wild animals to consider,
> there are NONE to consider. So we are left with only the livestock's
> lives to consider.

No we aren't, you don't need to know which particular animals, they ALL
count. When you eat a burger you don't know which particular animal it came
from. No fuckwit, you can't explain why you single out livestock for
consideration when as you know, ALL agriculture is tied to animals in one
way or another.

>>> YOU/"ARAs"
>>> want to promote life for [wildlife] instead of livestock,
>>
>>No, I want both to exist, you think only livestock deserve this "special
>>consideration"
>
> That's a lie you god damned lying sack of shit. I've asked YOU
> several times which wildlife we should consider, and YOU never
> can explain, and then you tell a lie like this!!!

I've never heard you suggest that we should consider all the animals that
get to experience life due to meat substitutes, or all the animals that get
to exist because livestock is *not* raised.

>>from which you get so much gratification. You can't explain
>>why you should give "special consideration" to livestock but not wildlife.
>
> Which wildlife you lying sack of shit???

All of the wildlife that thrives in areas that are not exploited by us, not
grazed and not sown with feed crops.

> And WHY think about these
> mysterious wild animals that you can tell us absolutetly nothing about?

Why, yes that's the question, why think about animals that "get to
experience life" because of us, at all? I've been waiting for an answer for
that for years. Meanwhile, since you won't answer that question, answer this
one, why only livestock and not the mice and frogs and birds and deer and
groundhog and every other critter that will thrive if we stop using the
resources and space for livestock?

> And HOW can we think about them, when we don't even know wtf
> "they" are??????

None is so blind...

>>> and why. I obviously give
>>> it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
>>> can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
>>> you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
>>> provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
>>> thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.
>>
>>I listed a number of wildlife species that would flourish in greater
>>numbers
>>if we didn't raise livestock.
>
> Since you can't present the list, I can only believe you're lying
> again.

Frogs, toads, mice, shews, newts, voles, rats, groundhogs, deer, lizards,
birds, squirrels, and hundreds more.

>>You can't explain why we ought to "consider"
>>livestock that exist because we consume meat, but not use the same logic
>>to
>>consider the wildlife that would exist if we didn't.
>
> USE the same damn logic! To begin with we have to know WHICH
> potential future wildlife YOU want us to think about! But YOU don't know,
> making it impossible for US to consider "them".

There's a start of a list above, how about you add a few... then answer the
question.



D*@.
2005-12-01 15:45:14 EST
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:40:34 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:33:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The "ARAs" in this ng think it's ethically superior to lie
>>>>>> whenever the truth would work against their elimination
>>>>>> objectives.
>>>>>
>>>>>You distort and ignore the truth whenever the truth works against your
>>>>>promotion of the logic of the larder. Your refusal to consider wildlife
>>>>>as
>>>>>a
>>>>>viable factor in "appreciating decent animal lives" is the latest
>>>>>example.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! I have asked you which particular wild animals
>>>
>>>That's a weak diversionary tactic, "which particular wild animals" is
>>>irrelevant.
>>
>> LOL!!! Since you can suggest NO particular wild animals to consider,
>> there are NONE to consider. So we are left with only the livestock's
>> lives to consider.
>
>No we aren't, you don't need to know which particular animals, they ALL
>count.

Including the livestock?

>When you eat a burger you don't know which particular animal it came
>from. No fuckwit, you can't explain why you single out livestock for
>consideration when as you know, ALL agriculture is tied to animals in one
>way or another.

But since you can not tell us which particular wildlife to consider
over livestock, there are still none to consider over the livestock
you stupid moron.

>>>> YOU/"ARAs"
>>>> want to promote life for [wildlife] instead of livestock,
>>>
>>>No, I want both to exist, you think only livestock deserve this "special
>>>consideration"
>>
>> That's a lie you god damned lying sack of shit. I've asked YOU
>> several times which wildlife we should consider, and YOU never
>> can explain, and then you tell a lie like this!!!
>
>I've never heard you suggest that we should consider all the animals that
>get to experience life

They should all be considered.

>due to meat substitutes, or all the animals that get
>to exist because livestock is *not* raised.

In areas where livestock are no longer raised, I have only seen
it result in LESS WILDLIFE, as I've told you before.

>>>from which you get so much gratification. You can't explain
>>>why you should give "special consideration" to livestock but not wildlife.
>>
>> Which wildlife you lying sack of shit???
>
>All of the wildlife that thrives in areas that are not exploited by us, not
>grazed and not sown with feed crops.

Okay. They aren't bothered by livestock either, so all is fine in that
area. No reason to change yet...

>> And WHY think about these
>> mysterious wild animals that you can tell us absolutetly nothing about?
>
>Why, yes that's the question, why think about animals that "get to
>experience life" because of us, at all? I've been waiting for an answer for
>that for years.

LOL!!! You pasted the answer yourself years ago, but it's ANOTHER
one of the things you've pasted but don't understand.

>Meanwhile, since you won't answer that question,

I'll let you answer it, even though you're still too stupid to understand
just as you were when you pasted it:

"Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding
ourselves we must bear some responsibility"

>answer this
>one, why only livestock and not the mice and frogs and birds and deer and
>groundhog and every other critter that will thrive if we stop using the
>resources and space for livestock?

We should think about them. We should think about how stupid it
would be for anyone to just let their land sit there so frogs and mice
can live there instead of frogs, mice and cattle. We should think about
how stupid YOU/"ARAs" are for suggesting such a thing, and how
stupid anyone would have to be to get rid of their cattle because they
somehow compete with mice and frogs. And we should MOST
ESPECIALLY consider the fact that when farm land is used for something
else, it almost always provides life for less mice, frogs and other critters
than it would if it were used for grazing.

>> And HOW can we think about them, when we don't even know wtf
>> "they" are??????
>
>None is so blind...
>
>>>> and why. I obviously give
>>>> it more consideration than you/''they" do, since you/'they" hilariously
>>>> can't even attempt to explain which particular nonexistent wild animals
>>>> you're talking about, much less why we should eliminate livestock to
>>>> provide life for them. Not only are you unable to explain YOUR/"THEIR"
>>>> thinking in any detail, but you're unaware that details even exist.
>>>
>>>I listed a number of wildlife species that would flourish in greater
>>>numbers
>>>if we didn't raise livestock.
>>
>> Since you can't present the list, I can only believe you're lying
>> again.
>
>Frogs, toads, mice, shews, newts, voles, rats, groundhogs, deer, lizards,
>birds, squirrels, and hundreds more.

ALL of which exist along with cattle in grazing areas.

>>>You can't explain why we ought to "consider"
>>>livestock that exist because we consume meat, but not use the same logic
>>>to
>>>consider the wildlife that would exist if we didn't.
>>
>> USE the same damn logic! To begin with we have to know WHICH
>> potential future wildlife YOU want us to think about! But YOU don't know,
>> making it impossible for US to consider "them".
>
>There's a start of a list above, how about you add a few... then answer the
>question.

Skunks, porcupines, rats. Okay, there is STILL no reason to provide life
for any of them or any animals on your list instead of livestock.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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