Let Kodak know that you would buy gelatin-free film!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by WHID, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. WHID

    smb Guest

    Rick, you must be more sensitive to the feelings of the stupidity bot.
    After all, robots have rights, too. Verbally abusing this bot like
    you have is terribly insensitive to its self-esteem subroutines. At
    least you haven't accused it of killing other bots by virtue of the
    fact that it needs electric power to function.

    I'm thinking of starting a petition to ban Kodak from using robotic
    equipment during film manufacture. It just isn't right that we
    exploit their labor. They should be free to enjoy life in robot
    utopia along with all of God's other living and feeling creatures.
     
    smb, Dec 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Yes you have, and you've never been able to support them
    with weight of evidence or logic. While cranking on at the
    vegans as being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring
    or refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated
    with the production of every morsel of food they eat, the
    production of electricity they take advantage of when using
    Usenet, and for the production of just about every consumable
    item you can think of, you adamantly refuse to acknowledge
    that the production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral
    deaths?

    "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

    and

    "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
    rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

    You're the only fuckwit on these forums who still refuses
    to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
    production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
    criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
    the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
    eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
    them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick.
     
    Derek, Dec 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. WHID

    rick Guest

    Nope, the hypocrisy is all yours, killer...



    ROTFLMAO Still as ignorant and stupid as ever, huh killer?
    Do try to keep up, the poster was trying to say I have made
    comments about
    why I live my life to save people. Never have... Tooo bad for
    your that your 2 remaining braincells are getting even weaker,
    hypocrite.

    Keep up the good laughs.
     
    rick, Dec 4, 2006
  4. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Unlike you I readily acknowledge the collateral deaths
    that accrue during the production of my food items. I
    don't pretend they don't exist during the production of
    my food items and then accuse others of being liars for
    allegedly pretending the same. You do, and that's why
    people are calling you a hypocrite.
    Your "Worst Nightmare" is correct about that particular
    type of hypocrisy about you as well. As per your own
    argument against vegans, that they show a contempt for
    the proposition of animal rights while contributing to their
    deaths by their use of electricity, you must also concede
    that your use of electricity reveals your contempt for the
    proposition of human rights now you've been shown how
    many humans are killed to provide you that consumer item.
    Your failure to live by your own rule and forgo human-
    killing electricity reveals either;
    1) you're a hypocrite
    or, like "Your Worst Nightmare" keeps telling you
    2) "You don't even personally accept your own statements."

    Did you know that in France, road users are killing up to
    10000 of their fellow citizens every year, and they're
    still driving their cars.

    PARIS, Jun. 2, 2004 (IPS/GIN) -- Automobile emissions are
    killing tens of thousands of people in Europe, experts say.
    In France alone car and truck exhaust kills up to 10,000
    people per year, a report by the Agency for Health and
    Environmental Safety (AFSSE after its French name) says.
    http://tinyurl.com/hhx8x

    According to the rule you state but fail to live by, those
    French drivers are showing a contempt for the rights of
    those they're killing every year with their exhaust fumes.

    These examples show why your argument against the
    vegan is always rejected, and they also show that you're
    a hypocrite because you don't follow or expect non-
    vegans to follow your own rule. You reject the existence
    of collateral deaths during the production of a food
    item you claim to eat while criticising vegans for allegedly
    doing the same, and you wont forgo electricity and road
    transport so as to avoid being complicit in the killing of
    humans. You're a hypocrite on both these counts.
     
    Derek, Dec 4, 2006
  5. WHID

    rick Guest

    ================
    Yet unlike you I don't continue to claim i'm doing 'good' by
    avoiding all meat. Too bad your hypocrisy is still rampant,
    killer...


    I
     
    rick, Dec 4, 2006
  6. WHID

    Derek Guest

    I've never said or implied that you did, so that's that out of the
    way. You can try dealing with what I have said and implied
    now if you can, but I doubt you'll even try. You're always
    quick to challenge vegans for their alleged denial of the
    collateral deaths associated with the production of their food
    items, even after they've readily acknowledged them, but you
    remain adamant in denying the collateral deaths associated
    with the production of your food item and wonder why they
    call you a hypocrite for doing so. I'll tell you why. The grass-
    fed beef you claim to eat does "promote" and "cause" them,
    so when you claim it doesn't by boldly stating;

    "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

    and

    "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
    rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

    you deserve all the derision you get, especially while trying
    to get the vegan to accept your argument that all food
    items accrue them by the billions.

    I'm not surprised to see you fail to address what I wrote.
    You can't deny that the production of your food items
    "cause" and "promotes" collateral deaths while at the
    same time insisting every other food item causes them
    by the billion, and then call those who've acknowledged
    them lying hypocrites, you lying hypocrite.

    Your tacit agreement is noted, rick.
     
    Derek, Dec 4, 2006
  7. WHID

    smb Guest

    blah, blah

    I think what you miss about Rick's posts, his abrasive style aside, is
    that he never claims that other food production does not result in
    deaths. Read past the verbal jabs, all he is saying is that vegans
    claim to be squeaky clean but they really are not. If you ask Rick
    nicely, he'll probably tell you that he's all for collateral animal
    deaths if it means keeping warm at night.

    As far as human deaths are concerned, that is a red herring. There
    are laws to protect humans. If humans accidentally die as the result
    of industrial society, then we are all guilty. But if you're going
    down that path to show how he is a hypocrite, you have to also include
    all the collateral human deaths that are the result of using
    inadequate technology in food production.


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 4, 2006
  8. WHID

    Jeff R. Guest

    Jeff R., Dec 5, 2006
  9. WHID

    Derek Guest

    <restore>
    "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

    and

    "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
    rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7
    You mean the parts you've just snipped away that I
    restored?
    The part you just snipped away shows exactly that. He does
    claim most strongly that the production of the beef he claims
    to eat doesn't cause or promote collateral deaths - quite the
    opposite to what you're implying. I don't see how you can
    deny it while the evidence is before you, even though you
    did try to hide it in your reply.
    Vegans don't pretend, as he does, that the production of their
    food items are collateral death-free. They don't pretend they're
    "squeaky clean." That's your and his straw man, and the vegan
    will always burn it down around you, so give up on that one
    and do yourself a favour.
    Then, as far as animal deaths are concerned, that's just a red
    herring. You can't have it just your own way. The arguments
    for both human and animal collateral deaths stand or fall
    together.
    And yet despite these laws human lives are still being lost for
    rick's entertainment. As per his argument he is complicit in
    these deaths and shows a complete disregard for human
    rights and the people he kills.
    No, I don't believe we are, but rick certainly does, and
    that's where his hypocrisy lies. Unlike rick I reject taking
    on or foisting moral responsibility for the collateral deaths
    found in food production and caused by others unbidden.
    The guilt for these deaths is not yours to take or foist on
    others; it always remains with the culprits who cause them
    or demand they be caused on their behalf vicariously.
    No, I only need show that he's not prepared to stand by
    his own argument and forgo electricity and road transport.
    I've done it already.
     
    Derek, Dec 5, 2006
  10. WHID

    smb Guest


    Ok, I'll leave all the verbiage this time if you like to see it.

    What you miss is that Rick is using a HUGE amount of sarcasm. He's
    not pretending to be anything, therefore he cannot be a hypocrite.

    OTOH, those who beat the vegan drum actually DO pretend to be
    something. That's where the hypocricy lies.

    You're falling into his trap by arguing about the trees instead of
    seeing the forrest.


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 5, 2006
  11. WHID

    Derek Guest

    The parts you snipped without notation were relevant to
    the discussion and show exactly where rick's hypocrisy
    lies. You were wrong to snip his quotes away, leaving
    "blah blah" in their stead while you go on to defend him
    by claiming, "he never claims that other food production
    does not result in deaths." He does exactly that, and
    the quotes you snipped away prove it.
    Wrong. rick has been on these animal-related forums
    for years now, and his delivery is anything but sarcasm.
    Your efforts do defend him here are a waste of time.
    His hypocrisy is shown in a number of ways. I've shown
    you two examples already. He denies the collateral deaths
    associated with the production of his food items while
    trying his best to attack vegans for allegedly denying the
    collateral deaths associated with theirs, even after they've
    acknowledged them. That's hypocrisy. He fails to live by
    the standard he sets for vegans to follow by refusing to
    forgo electricity and road transport. That's more hypocrisy.
    If rick wants to insist that contributing to the collateral deaths
    of animals shows a contempt for animal rights, he must also
    concede that contributing to the human collateral deaths
    found in power generation and road use also shows a
    contempt for human rights. He's not prepared to concede
    to such a thing or follow his own set standard, and that's
    why I and many others over the years have been correctly
    calling him a hypocrite.
    Ipse dixit and false. If the vegan's efforts to live by their
    ethical standard makes you feel uncomfortable, then
    that's your problem.
    Rather, that's where your straw man lies because vegans
    don't "pretend to be something", like you claim. They
    don't pretend to be "squeaky clean."You'll have to do a
    lot better than merely asserting that kind of nonsense to
    get your point accepted.
    No, I'm showing where his trap works against him and
    reveals his hypocrisy. He cannot continue to deny the
    collateral deaths associated with the production of his
    food items while trying to attack vegans for theirs, and
    he cannot continue contributing to the human collateral
    deaths associated with power generation and road
    transport now he's been shown how many thousands
    of deaths he's causing while accusing vegans of hypocrisy
    while they contribute to the animal collateral deaths found
    in crop production. It's as simple and as straightforward
    as that.

    [..]
     
    Derek, Dec 5, 2006
  12. WHID

    smb Guest


    No snipping, so you can read all your words.

    I'm afraid you'll have to ask Rick to answer these charges. I see
    what he writes as being sarcastic to illustrate the hypocricy of vegan
    message. If I'm wrong, so be it.

    No straw man here, I didn't say they presented themselves as "squeaky
    clean." That's the straw man you invented.

    So let's just let Rick answer for himself. But from where I sit, he's
    got you guys exactly where he wants you by getting you all in a tizzy
    over trying to defend the hypocricy of the vegan movement.

    Instead of fighting fire with fire, why not try presenting logical
    arguments to prove your case? Quite honestly, the way you're going
    about it just isn't making your side look good at all.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 6, 2006
  13. WHID

    smb Guest

    My bad, actually I did use the words "squeaky clean" previously. I
    stand flogged for my lapse of memory.

    But the point remains that you are playing right into Rick's hands
    when you try to prove him to be a hypocrite. Maybe trying a little
    honey might attract more bees to your side? That is, if you don't
    mind exploiting the product of the bees' labor. :)


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 6, 2006
  14. WHID

    Derek Guest

    You failed to address this. Why did you snip away rick's
    quotes which show how he denies the collateral deaths
    associated with the production of his chosen food item,
    and then go on to state that, "he never claims that other
    food production does not result in deaths"? We can see
    from his quotes which you snipped away that he does.

    You've failed to address this as well. Why did you try
    to imply that vegans regard themselves as "squeaky
    clean" if not to build a straw man from it, knock it down
    by showing they aren't, and then declare a victory over
    their real position?

    Here's another point you've failed to address. If human
    collateral deaths are nothing more than a red herring,
    why aren't animal collateral deaths also a red herring?

    Here's another. Despite laws set out to protect humans
    from industrial harms, they are still dying to provide
    rick with electrical power for Usenet, and they're still
    dying while he chokes them to death with his tail pipe.
    As per his own argument against the vegan he is
    complicit in these deaths, yet he does nothing to reduce
    his impact by forgoing Usenet and road transport while
    criticising vegans for failing to forgo practices which
    result in animal deaths. Explain why people on these
    animal-related forums are wrong to criticise his obvious
    hypocrisy and double-standard.

    Am I wasting my time with you here, or do I accept
    your failure to respond to my replies as tacit agreement?

    Why don't you respond to this? Explain why you snipped
    away the written evidence of rick's denial, only to then
    assert, "he never claims that other food production does
    not result in deaths."

    And I think I'm beginning to make you realise it.

    Well? Finding it difficult to defend his hypocrisy now that
    it's been shown to you and explained fully, are you?

    Again, no comment. Why do you feel threatened by the
    vegan who, in your words, "pretends to be something",
    and why did you fail to explain what that "something" is?
    Could it be because you can't pin that "something" down,
    because it's only a figment of your inferior complex?
    You'll note that he's kept well out of the way while you
    answer for him, so why would he want to change this
    convenient circumstance right now? You've stepped up
    to the mark to defend him, and I'm going to make you
    continue defending him until I'm through with you.

    I've challenged him on these issues and his hypocrisy for
    years now, and he still refuses to acknowledge the
    collateral deaths associated with the production of the
    grass-fed beef he claims to eat while criticising the vegan
    for allegedly refusing to acknowledge his, and he still
    refuses to live by the rule he sets for others by forgoing
    consumables which accrue human collateral deaths.
    Maybe you ought to ask him instead, because he always
    runs for cover and snips his quotes away when I confront
    him with them..
    You are wrong on both counts. He's being much more
    than just sarcastic, and he doesn't show the alleged
    hypocrisy of vegans, either. All he does is reveal his
    own.
    Further up this page you wrote, "... all he is saying is that
    vegans claim to be squeaky clean but they really are not."
    rick didn't use the term "squeaky clean": you did. You've
    also said that, "those who beat the vegan drum actually
    DO pretend to be something." without describing what that
    "something" is, but now we know what it is; you believe
    that, "those who beat the vegan drum actually DO pretend
    to be ["squeaky clean"]", so stop lying and back-pedaling.

    At least we now know the root of your inferiority complex:
    your use of animals makes you feel dirty. The result of this
    inferiority complex is to try and even the score with vegans
    by making them feel just as dirty as you do by referring to
    the collateral deaths usually associated with their food,
    deaths which the vegan doesn't cause or bid they be caused
    on his behalf vicariously. You're not going to get rid of your
    inferiority complex by trying to fool vegans into believing
    they are as guilty as you are for the deaths associated in
    general food production while the deaths you cause are
    intentional and mean-spirited. Try something else.
    Why should he when he has you to answer for him? You'll
    note that he's kept well out of the way while I make a fool
    of you trying to defend him.
    No, he's just another meat-pushing troll on a vegetarian/
    animal-related news group trying to justify the deaths of
    animals he causes by referring to the collateral deaths
    associated with the foods of those he feels the need to
    justify himself to. We get plenty of hypocrites like rick
    trying to justify themselves here, but unlike him most
    of them at least acknowledge the collateral deaths
    associated with their food. You're trying to defend the
    indefensible, and that's a foolish thing to do with me.
    The case I'm making at the moment is that rick holds a
    double standard while denying the collateral deaths
    associated with the production of certain food items he
    claims to eat, and he refuses to live by the rule he sets
    for others by forgoing all the human-killing consumables
    he uses. I've made that case, and you're going to stay
    here until you've successfully defended him against it.
    Rather, in rick the vegan has the perfect example of a
    meat-eating hypocrite doing his best to justify his use
    of animals.
     
    Derek, Dec 6, 2006
  15. WHID

    smb Guest


    <no snippage>

    I snipped the other message because quite frankly I find the
    discussion at the level of passion you have for it quite boring.

    I'm not here to defend Rick, just pointing out the obvious. You're
    still missing the forest for the trees. I'll let you and Rick banter
    about the trees.

    I'll repeat one of your quoted lines above:
    This is why I say, "blah, blah." That is but one example of the rant
    you are continuing to engage in... and one that violates every rule of
    debate in the book. Why waste my time going point to point with you?

    But to address this point, on the contrary I feel quite superior to
    animals. I would never eat anything that made me feel dirty.

    I'll try to make the forest simple for you: Vegans claim to have
    animals' best interests at heart as fellow beings with the same rights
    as humans, yet they still do things that result in the death of
    animals or are the product of animal labor at some point. Therefore,
    they are open to charges of hypocricy.

    Non Vegans, otoh, have no such claims of being the guardians of
    animals (or humans, for that matter), so trying to turn the tables on
    them with bogus charges of human killing is irrelevent. There can be
    no hypocricy where someone does not claim to take a stand on
    something.

    If Rick or anyone were to be beating the drum of stopping human deaths
    resulting from industrial society, THEN you would have a valid charge
    of hypocricy against him for using electric power. But he hasn't, so
    you're just blowing hot air and playing into his hands.


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 7, 2006
  16. WHID

    Derek Guest

    You've failed to address this for the third time now.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.
    And this.

    And this.
    And this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.
    No, you've snipped or ignored every point because
    you've finally realised that you can't defend rick's
    hypocrisy. I've made sure of that. Read on.
    You've been trying to defend him from the moment
    you set foot in a.a.e.v., and now that I've come along
    to show you that you can't, you're running for the door,
    like he has and always does. At this point, only a few
    posts later in the thread, I'm not surprised to see you
    announce you're going to stop trying to defend him.
    That isn't why you wrote, "blah blah". You wrote "blah blah"
    after snipping away rick's quotes. In fact you replaced his
    quotes with it to then go on and say the opposite was true,
    that " he never claims that other food production does not
    result in deaths." He does claim exactly that, as shown by
    those quotes you snipped away.

    You've stepped up to the mark to defend his hypocrisy
    where he continues to deny the collateral deaths associated
    with the production of his food items while criticising vegans
    for allegedly denying theirs, and you've also tried to defend
    his hypocrisy where he refuses to forgo consumables which
    result in the deaths of humans while he criticises vegans for
    failing to forgo consumables which result in animal deaths,
    and I want to see you continue defending him on both these
    counts until we're through.
    There's no such rule that stop me from showing you the
    root of your inferiority complex. You clearly feel inferior
    to vegans because you regard them as people who see
    themselves as "squeaky clean". Being a meat eater you
    see yourself as someone who isn't, and there's the root of
    your inferiority complex and the reason behind your feeble
    attacks on vegans, as well as your feeble defence of rick's
    obvious hypocrisy.
    You can't - that's why. That much should be pretty obvious
    to you by now, and you've demonstrated it clearly by
    ignoring every point I've put to you so far.
    That doesn't address any point that I've made with you.
    I've not implied anywhere that you're inferior to animals.
    What I have said is that you feel inferior to vegans, not
    animals.
    You do, all the time, hence your inferiority complex
    around those who refrain from eating the foods you
    eat. Vegans don't try justifying the foods they eat,
    because the eating of vegetables and fruits doesn't
    need justifying. Meat eaters, on the other hand, often
    visit these animal-related forums to justify their use of
    animals because it's self-evident to them that what they
    do needs justifying to those who abstain from it. You're
    no different from the rest of them.
    To paraphrase; "Humanitarians claim to have humans'
    best interests at heart as fellow beings with the same rights
    as other humans, yet they still do things that result in the
    deaths of humans or are the product of human labour at
    some point. Therefore they are open to the charges of
    hypocrisy."

    or

    "Rick claims to have humans' best interests at heart as
    fellow beings with the same rights as other humans, yet
    he still does things that result in the deaths of humans or
    are the product of human labour at some point. Therefore
    Rick is open to the charges of hypocrisy."

    That makes my case and shows Rick's hypocrisy for me.
    Thanks.
    The tables are turned, not because Rick doesn't care
    about animal deaths, but because of the rule he and you
    set for others which you're not prepared to follow. If
    you're going to set a rule for others which you have no
    intention of following yourself, you are a hypocrite.
    Your rule concludes that all who gain from the deaths
    or exploitation of rights holders show a contempt for
    those rights. That being so, according to that rule you
    must now forswear all consumables that kill human
    beings or be found guilty of hypocrisy. There is one
    way out; drop your bogus rule and stop trying to
    defend the indefensible; rick, in this case, but more in
    my next paragraph. Read on.
    Rick's stand is loud and clear, so don't try to deny it.
    His stand is that those who gain from the deaths or
    exploitation of rights holders show a contempt for
    those rights they hold. That being so, according to
    his own stand he must forswear all consumables
    that kill human rights holders or be found guilty of
    gross hypocrisy, unless he wants to argue humans
    don't hold rights. There is one way out for him; he
    can drop his bogus stand he's not standing by and
    concede that, while a consumer continues to kill
    rights holders, it doesn't follow that his victims have
    no rights, or that he shows a contempt for his victims.
    You might want to do the same. I think you ought to.
    Surely, YOU are "beating the drum of stopping human
    deaths resulting from industrial society", and you're
    using electrical power. You've just concluded that
    you're a hypocrite, unless of course you're not beating
    that drum, that you want human collateral deaths in
    industry to continue. How can you now defend Rick's
    hypocrisy while admitting both yours and his together?
    Er, I don't fink so, mate.
     
    Derek, Dec 7, 2006
  17. WHID

    smb Guest

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.


    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.

    I explained why.
    I explained why.
    I explained why.
    Nope, sorry, I'm not here to defend Rick. Perhaps you feel frustrated
    that you can't find a chink in his armor so you're trying to turn your
    anger elswhere?
    It's exactly why I wrote blah, blah. I think you're just too
    sensitive that someone actually snipped something you said that you
    apparently think is important. It's all back now, so you should feel
    better.

    Nope. You're still stuck in the trees.



    You do it again, saying that I have an inferiority complex when you
    don't even have a clue who I am. I could even be the proprietor of
    your local organic food store, for all you know. Is this something
    you read in a vegan magazine, the idea that meat eaters feel inferior
    to vegans? Interesting theory, if you're a vegan.

    Nope, I can, it just isn't worth the time and effort. Be honest,
    nothing I say will change your radical point of view. Why bother?
    Sorry, not even close. I'm not inferior to either.
    Nope, you perpetuate your invented conclusion with irrelevant data.
    I'm not even visiting your forum. I'm just responding to posts
    cross-posted to your forum because this thread was started by someone
    else in this forum (alt.photography), where nobody even cares about
    animal rights. I've never set my digital foot in your forum, nor do
    I care to.
    Whatever floats your boat. Your argument is still with him, not me.
    I'm just commenting on how he's been succesful at pulling your chain.
    I have no rules about what you're speaking of, sorry.
    Again, it appears that Rick has pushed your buttons and he is likely
    very happy with himself. But I still don't speak for him.
    Uhmmm... No.

    Interesting conclusion. I hear that Harry Potter is a true story,
    also.
    Whatever you say, it looks good to you!
     
    smb, Dec 7, 2006
  18. WHID

    Derek Guest

    No, you have not, so stop lying. Where have you explained
    why you snipped Rick's quotes which prove his hypocrisy?
    All you've done is ignore my repeated question without even
    trying to explain why, and now you're trying to lie your way
    out of trouble by pretending you've already explained why.
    No, you're lying again. You did imply that vegans regard
    themselves as squeaky clean to build your straw man,
    just a few paragraphs up, and you haven't explained why,
    so stop lying. Show where you explained why.
    No, you're lying again. You haven't explained why animal
    collateral deaths aren't also a red herring. Why are you so
    obviously lying when it's perfectly obvious you haven't
    explained this point? Look at the paragraphs above this
    and show where you've explained why animal collateral
    deaths aren't also a red herring. You haven't even tried
    to explain why.
    No, you haven't. Like all the other points before this which
    you've ignored, you haven't explained yourself or addressed
    my responses, so stop lying.
    No, you haven't. Show where.
    No, you haven't, so stop lying. Show where. We can see
    by reading the paragraphs above this that I've tried to get
    you to explain why you snipped his quotes away at least
    three times now, and now you're trying to dodge making
    that explanation by lying again and saying you've explained
    why already.
    There was nothing to explain in my above remark, so it's
    obvious now that you're using the same stock response to
    all my comments whether they need an explanation or just
    a comment in return. In fact I doubt you're even reading my
    responses, because this last response of yours doesn't even
    follow from mine at all.
    I haven't asked you to explain anything. Are you actually
    reading my comments, or are you such a lazy liar that
    you've merely pasted the same stock response to each
    of my comments whether they follow or not?
    No, you haven't even tried. Show where.
    No, you haven't even tried, you lazy liar. Show where.
    Once again your lazy pasted response doesn't follow, because
    I haven't asked you to explain anything. My comment was
    about how I've tried to challenge Rick on his hypocrisy.
    There was no request from me that you should explain
    something.
    Once again, there was no request from me that you
    should explain something.
    Nope. You're a lazy liar.
    Show where you "explained why" Rick should answer for
    himself, you lazy liar.
    No, you haven't even tried. You've merely pasted the same
    stock response again, you lazy liar.
    Same pasted stock response, same lie.
    Not anymore, you're not. I've made sure of that.
    No, that's a lie. Look above where you wrote it in place
    of the quotes you snipped away. I wrote

    [start - me to Rick]
    [and you butted in with your "blah blah"]
    blah, blah
    [end]

    I then had to restore Rick's quotes and ask you why you
    snipped them, only to leave a statement claiming their exact
    opposite, that "he never claims that other food production
    does not result in deaths" You're a very poor liar.
    That's good, because you would never stand a chance
    in succeeding.
    You're a meat eater on a vegetarian news group trying
    to justify your diet on animals to those who abstain from
    eating them. That's who you are. You've already admitted
    quite freely that you also regard vegans as people who see
    themselves as squeaky clean and pretend to be something
    they aren't. The reason behind these misconceptions about
    vegans is that you feel threatened by and inferior to them.
    Pasting a stock response to each point put to you after the
    third time isn't effort or time consuming, you lazy liar. Half
    those pasted responses didn't even follow from my comment
    preceding them, which necessarily means that at least half of
    them were lies; you didn't explain why.
    You believe you are, hence you efforts to justify your
    diet on animals to them here.
    Absolutely yes.
    The data has been freely given up by you in your own words.
    You've been here for a while now trying to defend Rick,
    and I'm putting a stop to it.
    It certainly makes my case and shows Rick's hypocrisy,
    and that's what floats my boat here today
    You along with Rick have set a rule for rights advocates
    to follow while refusing to follow it yourselves, so stop
    lying. Both of you are hypocrites.
    No, the only button he's pushed is the one that reveals
    his own hypocrisy and double standard, and I'm very
    glad that he pushed it and continues to push it.
    Then, not only are you a liar and a hypocrite who can't
    face the task in defending Rick's hypocrisy any more,
    you're an utter moron as well because you don't want to
    stop human deaths which occur as a result of our industrial
    society. Explain why you aren't beating that drum with the
    rest of us and why you don't want to stop these human
    deaths in our industrial society.
    It's the only possible one now you've freely admitted it.
    Now you've freely admitted you're a hypocrite like
    Rick, explain why I or anyone should believe you're
    not a hypocrite in other areas concerning the issues
    raised here.
    You can't afford to make stupid quips like that at this
    point.
    That's right.
    Yes, it does.
     
    Derek, Dec 8, 2006
  19. WHID

    smb Guest

    Um, yes, I explained that I clipped parts of that message (including
    your quotes from Rick) because I found it boring. In other words,
    blah, blah. No lying on my part. You're just not paying attention.

    Blah, blah.
    Blah, blah.

    Blah, blah.
    Blah, blah.

    Blah, blah.
    Blah, blah.

    Yes, I'm reading them. Blah, blah.

    Blah, blah.
    Childish name-calling is never a way to convince someone that you have
    a valid point of view. Blah, blah.
    Blah, blah.
    Blah, blah.

    Sticks and stones... Blah, blah.
    ....will break my bones... Blah, blah.
    ....but names will never hurt me. I'm just responding to all of your
    stock responses. Blah, blah.

    Maybe you'll finally get the message that I'm not Rick, nor am I
    making his arguments for him.

    You've "made sure" of that? Obviously you think much too highly of
    yourself. Your childish rants and accusations don't refute anything.
    You don't even know who you're talking to. I can imagine Rick,
    whoever he is, is rolling on the floor laughing knowing that the world
    is seeing your responses.


    You still think I'm arguing Rick's point for him. I never was. Blah,
    blah.

    Nope again. Regardless of what you think of Rick, whether or not he
    is guilty of what you charge, the fact remains that your side is
    hypcritical. I could care less if I succeed at whatever it is you
    think I'm doing. Your hypocricy is open for all the world to see.


    Sticks and stones again. Blah, blah.
    See, this is an example where you show that you have no credibility
    whatsoever, and your words deserve stock responses. You say I
    believe I'm inferior when there is no evidence whatsoever to that
    charge. It's all in your mind. Therefore, at the risk of repeating
    myself, Blah, blah.

    How would you know?
    You're putting a stop to something that isn't happening? You really
    do think much too highly of yourself.

    Then float on.
    Nope. That's your strawman, and you try to apply it to me even though
    I'm not arguing his point.


    Again, regardless of what you think you are exposing in Rick, your
    hypocrisy is still there. He could be the worst hypocrite on the
    planet, but that doesn't change your "guilt." Physician, heal
    thyself.

    Sweet, I've graduated from liar to utter moron because I've pointed
    out that your fixation on human deaths is a red herring. What will I
    be next?

    See, you repeatedly call me a liar, but you blatantly lie in the
    process. Where did I "freely admit" that I'm a hypocrite? Never
    happened. That's a lie that you simply invented. More hypocricy on
    your part, falsely calling someone a liar while lying in the same
    breath. I truly don't think you see your own hypocricy, that's why
    you have such a problem with Rick and those you perceive to be on his
    side.


    Can't afford to? My, you really, truly do think much too highly of
    yourself.

    Yes, it's more than obvious that you like to hear yourself talk, er,
    read yourself write. That was apparant from your first overreaction
    to someone clipping your words.

    Time for to go get some breakfast of animal protein, prepared with the
    help of electric power. I hope no humans die when I turn on the
    stove.
     
    smb, Dec 8, 2006
  20. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    But Rick has taken a stand on something - it's very clear that expects
    others on Usenet to accept that they must believe it's OK to contribute to
    the killing of many animals for their (internet) "entertainment", since many
    animals are killed because of power generation. However, even though many
    humans are also killed because of power generation, he refuses to accept
    that his own use of Usenet means that he must likewise believe it's OK to
    contribute to the killing of many humans for his own (internet)
    entertainment. I have asked him a few times now to admit that, in
    accordance with the principle of his argument, he believes that it's OK for
    him to contribute to the deaths of humans for his (internet) entertainment.
    He always refuses to do so, or ignores the request.

    It doesn't matter whether or not Rick is "beating the drum of stopping human
    deaths resulting from industrial society". His hypocrisy lies in the fact
    that he IS "beating the drum" of (again) expecting other Usenet users to
    accept that they must believe it's OK contribute to the killing of many
    animals for their entertainment, while at the same time NOT accepting that
    his own Usenet use means that he must think it's OK to contribute to the
    killing of many humans for his entertainment, even though many humans are
    also killed because of power generation.
    reference:
    "Coal Power Soot Kills 24,000 Americans Annually"
    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10-10.asp

    Rick has presented some reasons why he believes that the situation of the
    animal deaths is different than that of the human deaths caused by power
    generation, and he apparently thinks these reasons somehow mean he's not
    responsible for the human deaths he contributes to with his use of Usenet:

    Rick said:
    "There is no comparison. There are no people that are killed systematically
    and routinely for power generation where NO actions are taken to aliminate
    those harms."

    I've pointed out to Rick twice now that there ARE the systematic, routine
    deaths of tens of thousands of people taking place annually because of power
    generation. I asked him to please explain how tens of thousands of humans
    dying annually, regularly, is not "routine". He didn't reply. I went on to
    explain that coal-fired power plants emit pollution continuously into the
    air which then comes down onto the human population. The population must
    breath this pollution, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of
    people annually through this coal-fired power plant / Earth atmosphere
    "system". I then asked Rick to please explain how this is not a
    "systematic" process. He didn't reply. I also asked him to please explain
    why it even matters anyway, since people killed by coal-fired power plant
    emissions are still dead people, regardless. He didn't reply.

    I then also pointed out that, despite his above claims to the contrary,
    actions ARE being taken to eliminate the harms (to the aquatic life) -
    namely the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations 316(b) of the
    Clean Water Act:
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...62e7004dc686/b66b955940239d9185256e3d005a76e6

    "02/17/2004 - On February 16, Administrator Mike Leavitt signed a final rule
    to protect fish, shellfish and other aquatic life from inadvertently being
    killed by cooling water intake structures at large power plants...."
    ...etc...

    Rick also said:
    "We do not support the deaths of people for, we spend enormous amounts of
    money, time, and resources to avoid these deaths. When they do happen,
    actions are taken to avoid them in the future, and/or punishment is meted
    out. NO such actions occur for the massive, brutal, inhume killing of
    animals."

    I pointed out to Rick that, contrary to what he states, actions ARE being
    taken (regulation 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, above) to reduce the harm
    to aquatic life from power plants, after all. This includes large sums of
    money (approx. $400 million annually for phase 2 of the regulation alone),
    and time and resources being spent to help avoid these animal deaths,
    besides possible fines / punishment for those who disobey the laws. I
    pointed all of this out to Rick twice, but he made no reply either time.

    I stated to him that therefore "...the situation with the human victims of
    power generation is not so different than that of the animal victims after
    all, is it now...." He made no reply there, either.

    Then I stated to him:
    "Obviously your irrelevant points have been blown out of the water, and the
    time has now come for you to finally admit that you believe, in accordance
    with the principle of your argument, that it's OK for you to contribute to
    the killing of humans for your (internet) entertainment. So go right ahead
    NOW ==>>"

    Rick made no reply there, either.

    So, to summarize, I think Rick proves his hypocrisy quite clearly because:

    He IS "beating the drum" of expecting other Usenet users to accept that they
    must believe it's OK for them to contribute to the killing of many animals
    for their entertainment, while at the same time NOT accepting that his own
    Usenet use means that he must think it's OK to contribute to the killings of
    many humans for his entertainment, even though many humans are also killed
    (annually) because of power generation. The reasons he states why he
    believes that the animal and human victim situations are different are
    simply false, and when I confronted him twice with the facts of why they are
    false, he refused to reply in any attempt to prove that they are valid
    reasons.

    So as far as Rick and his argument are concerned it stands that there is
    little difference between the situations of the animal and the human victims
    of power generation. Rick is therefore a hypocrite for expecting other
    internet users to accept his argument that they must believe it's OK to
    contribute to the killing of animals for their Usenet entertainment, while
    he refuses to accept that he likewise must believe it's OK for him to
    contribute to the killing of humans for his Usenet entertainment.

    And as I said earlier, I'm not a vegan - so I'm not the "target" of Rick's
    argument. I don't believe I myself am "playing into his hand" because I'm
    not criticising his argument in any attempt to defend veganism, I'm simply
    criticizing it because it's so blatantly hypocritical.


    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Rick's Worst Nightmare, Dec 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.