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

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

  1. WHID

    Derek Guest

    I will. You can always be sure of that.
    Yes you have, so stop lying. You've both set a rule for
    vegans to follow which neither of you are prepared to
    follow yourselves. You're hypocrites.

    [..]
    No, not because of that, but because you refuse to "beat
    that drum" and admittedly don't care to see a reduction in
    the human collateral deaths which occur as a result of our
    industrial society. You've just admitted you don't, which
    clearly makes you a hypocrite, because while you try to
    criticise vegans for allegedly failing to do their best to see
    a reduction in the collateral deaths associated with those
    they regard as rights holders (animals), you fail to do your
    best and "beat that drum" in an effort to reduce the collateral
    deaths associated with those you regard as rights holders
    (humans).
    Here, by promoting human rights while at the same time
    refusing to beat that drum and do your bit to reduce the
    human collateral deaths which are a result of our industrial
    society. You make a rule and expect vegans to beat that
    drum and do all they can to reduce the collateral deaths
    associated with those they regard as rights holders (animals)
    while refusing to live by that same rule you've set them and
    do all you can to see a reduction in the collateral deaths
    associated with those you regard as rights holders (humans).
    It's as simple and as straightforward as that, hypocrite.
     
    Derek, Dec 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. WHID

    smb Guest

    Somehow, I have Enya's "Sail Away" song stuck in my head.....
    Nope. I haven't set any rules at all. You'll have to ask Rick what
    his rules are, but personally I have no problem using electric power
    even though I know full well that people die as the result of
    industrial accidents and whatnot. If you consider that hypocricy,
    you are missing the big picture that far more humans lives are
    enhanced and saved by the same industrial society that may contribute
    the deaths of a few. Can you say that about animals? Nope.

    Nope, it's still a red herring, and I haven't admitted anything.

    If you were truly reading this topic, you would have seen that I think
    Rick's point was a bit over the top. However, it does serve to
    expose your hypocricy. Whether or not you think Rick is also a
    hypocrite is irrelevant. Again, physician, heal thyself.

    Nope, you are still blatantly lying. You said I freely admit
    something when in fact I did not. You just made that up.

    But what you fail to see is that even if I *did* freely admit to being
    a hypocrite, that has no bearing on the hypocricy of the vegan
    movement.

    Physician, check into a clinic!



    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. WHID

    Derek Guest

    And very little else, obviously.
    His rule is the same as yours and trying to defend, so
    don't pretend you don't know what it is.
    But it's clear that you DO have a problem with vegans
    who use that electricity while they allegedly know full
    well that animals die as a result of it, and here lies
    your hypocrisy, as well as in other areas I've shown.
    If you have no qualms about killing rights holders for
    your convenience, criticising vegans for doing the
    same marks you down as a hypocrite.

    According to your rule,

    "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."

    You use electrical power which you now know kills
    human rights holders, and despite what you've
    said about NOT beating that drum, that you don't
    care to see a reduction of these human collateral
    deaths, I'm convinced you would be beating that
    drum if it were your own family members and
    friends being killed, and that also shows you're
    a hypocrite.
    You certainly do, as shown by your earlier remarks
    concerning people who use human-killing electricity.
    The picture I get is that of a hypocrite who's clearly
    unwilling to follow the same rule he sets for others.
    You've admitted that you use electricity which you've
    also acknowledged kills human rights holders, and your
    rule clearly states that,

    "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."

    You've tacitly admitted you're a hypocrite by your
    own standard which you've set for others but fail to
    follow yourself, hypocrite.
    Absolutely yes, hypocrite.
     
    Derek, Dec 10, 2006
  4. WHID

    smb Guest

    I'm carefully avoiding snipping anything since it makes you so upset.
    My apologies to others reading this who have to wade thru this jumble
    of multiple quoted and requoted and requoted verbiage.


    Ooohhhh.... ouch... you really got me there.... good put-down. You
    are truly the Jedi master of rational usenet discussion.

    Nope, sorry, I have no rules regarding electric power use.
    Nope, sorry, I have no problem with you using all the electric power
    you can. None whatsoever. It's not my problem, it's yours. I
    don't have any qualms about incidental animal deaths. You do.

    Nope, sorry. I never criticized you for using electric power. I
    just agreed with the *principle* of Rick's argument, which is that if
    you do use that power with the knowledge that it kills animals
    indiscriminantly, you are not walking the vegan walk.

    In fact, I admire the fact that you do use electric power, since it
    shows that you haven't gone completely off the deep end.


    Sorry, that's not a rule. That's a logical if-then statement.

    You're making assumptions and then drawing conclusions from those
    assumptions. The fact is that my own family members and friends are
    not being killed by yours or my power use. Very few humans actually
    are killed as the direct result of power generation. This is more
    than balanced by the fact that power generation has greatly enhanced
    and extended the life of my family and friends.

    If you are going to say that x number of humans are killed as an
    *indirect* result of power generation, then your guess is as good as
    mine. Whatever that number is, it is still orders of magnitude less
    than the number of lives saved by electric power.

    Nope, you keep missing the fact that I'm not Rick nor am I his
    spokesman. I just happen to agree with the principle of his
    argument.

    What I've admitted is that any human (rights holders???) deaths that
    may result from power generation are far outweighed by lives that are
    saved, therefore my use of power is a net benefit for humans. And a
    huge one, at that. I save lives by consuming electric power.

    Again, that is a statement, not a rule.
    Now you're saying I tacitly admitted to being a hypocrite, which at
    least is an improvement from you saying I openly admitted to being
    one. Keep working at it, you'll see the truth sooner of later.

    Sticks and stones again. Regardless of what you think of me or
    anyone else who disagrees with you, the fact remains that the vegan
    movement is full of its own hypocricy.

    Physician, call 9-1-1 !!!



    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 10, 2006
  5. WHID

    Derek Guest

    You can't afford to make stupid quips at this point, and
    they don't get you off the hook, either, so give up
    trying.
    You're a liar as well as a hypocrite. Below is your
    rule regarding those who use electrical power, and
    how it allegedly shows them to be hypocrites.

    "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."

    and

    "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."

    Those statements are your rules regarding those who
    use electrical power and how they allegedly show the
    consumers of that power to be hypocrites. Your rules
    are as clear as can possibly be, but now, after being
    shown how they reveal your hypocrisy rather than the
    vegan's, you're trying to distance yourself from them
    by saying you haven't made them. What a pathetic
    and desperate liar you are.
    Then you lied when claiming vegans are hypocrites
    for using electrical power by stating,

    "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."

    and

    "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."

    How many more times are you going to lie in a futile
    effort to get yourself off the hook you've impaled
    yourself on? Your rules clearly state that those who
    use electrical power or do things that result in the
    deaths of those they regard as rights holders are
    hypocrites, so stop lying.
    Absolutely yes, without a doubt. You can't escape
    that fact, you lying hypocrite.
    It most certainly is a rule; your rule, you stupid liar.
    But if they were, and they probably are without you
    even realising it, you would be beating that drum,
    hypocrite, and that's the point I'm making here to
    show another side of your hypocrisy.
    You've been shown how many human deaths result
    from coal power stations alone, liar, so don't pretend
    that you're unaware.

    "Coal Power Soot Kills 24,000 Americans Annually"
    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10-10.asp

    You use electrical power which results in these deaths,
    and yet you still continue to use it after being shown the
    evidence of the lives you take. According to your rule;

    "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."

    From that, while you continue to use electricity from
    power stations which kills thousands of Americans
    annually, by your own rule you are that hypocrite.
    ... you use electricity from power stations which results
    in the deaths of thousands of Americans annually, and
    according to your rule you are a rank hypocrite. That's
    what you've admitted, hypocrite.
    Of course it's a rule, you inept, desperate liar.
    You have, and you've also admitted OPENLY that
    you, along with everyone else, is a hypocrite by writing,

    "Look, I don't think anybody is saying that power
    plants are evil because they have environmental
    impact. Like anything in life, there is a risk/benefit
    ratio attached. In that worldview, then we ALL
    are hypocrites, raving or otherwise."

    As we can plainly see, you have OPENLY admitted
    that your use of electrical power marks you down as
    a hypocrite, raving or otherwise. You can only speak
    for yourself, of course, seeing as it's your rule you're
    going by to reach that conclusion, but you cannot keep
    lying by insisting you haven't described yourself as a
    hypocrite according to the rules you've set.
    Grow up and take your shame, hypocrite. If you can't
    take being called what you are, you should stop being
    what you are or learn to accept that people are going
    to continue calling you a hypocrite. Rather than show
    that vegans are hypocrites, like you hoped, the rule
    you've set them which you're not prepared to follow
    shows that it is you who's the hypocrite, not the vegan.

    It's quite obvious now that, since being shown you are
    the hypocrite by your own rule rather than the vegans
    you set out to defeat with it, your only recourse is to
    try and lie your way out of your mess by refusing to
    acknowledge the rules you've set others but refuse to
    follow yourself. You're done, hypocrite.
     
    Derek, Dec 11, 2006
  6. WHID

    Pete Guest

    This discussion has nothing to do with photography. And Steve, if you are
    going to set a standard or a rule for other people to follow you should at
    least have the moral decency to follow it yourself or shut up! You are a
    hypocrite!!


     
    Pete, Dec 11, 2006
  7. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Sorry about that. I joined in half way through and obviously
    didn't cross post it to your group intentionally.
    Exactly. He's dropped trying to defend Rick's rule only
    to then make it his own, and now he's trying to lie his
    way out of the mess he's made for himself by pretending
    he didn't make it and therefore doesn't have to follow it
    so as to avoid being seen as a hypocrite.
    [..]
     
    Derek, Dec 11, 2006
  8. WHID

    Pete Guest

    Can't you tell that he knows that already? Can't you tell that he knows he's
    making a world-class fool of himself? All he's trying to do is irritate you
    for making him look so bloody stupid, so stop responding to him or he'll
    think he's getting his own back by getting under your skin. Simple :)
     
    Pete, Dec 11, 2006
  9. WHID

    Derek Guest

    I did say that I was going to make him continue defending
    Rick's position until I was through with him, but he's dropped
    defending Rick's position quite a while back, so I guess I
    should be satisfied with that and leave him to continue
    making a fool of himself without me.
     
    Derek, Dec 11, 2006
  10. WHID

    smb Guest

    This time I'm clipping, as this thread is just to messy to look at
    otherwise. If anyone actually has an interest in the clipped words,
    just go back to the previous message.

    You still think I can or can't afford something or other. What hook
    do you think I'm on? Again, you think MUCH too highly of yourself.


    Nope, those are not rules at all. They are just statements of
    opinion. I never said I didn't make those statements. You're just
    falling into the downward spiral of name-calling because you can't
    think of anything meaningful to say. It's sad.

    Nope, there is no lie there. I have no problem whatsoever with you
    using electric power. I just pointed out that YOU might have a
    problem with it, knowing that animals are killed as a direct result.
    And you also say that humans are killed by it. That puts a double
    whammy on you.

    I know you have a hard time understanding things, so I'll try again.

    I've made no rules.

    I've not lied about anything.

    I've not claimed to take the high ground on anything, so therefore I
    can't be a hypocrite about those things.




    Sticks and stones. I'll tattle to the teacher during recess and
    you'll be in big trouble. You may even have to stay after school to
    learn how not to say bad things to others.

    Why not try actually saying something logical instead of constantly
    falling back on name calling? You might gain some respect that way.

    Hmmmm.... "if" and "probably" and you are drawing conclusions
    from those statements. It's obvious you don't know what you are
    talking about.
    You are assuming that this story is true. You also probably believe
    everything Al Gore says about global warming, which a few years back
    the scientists said was really global cooling.


    You keep ignoring that even if your reference were true, many, many
    more deaths are prevented by electric power.

    And if you truly believe that story to be true, then you are piling on
    your own hypocricy by continuing to use electric power which you
    believe kills both animals and humans.


    Sigh. Again, there is no rule there.

    And again, even IF you could show that I was a hypocrite, that would
    have no bearing on your own hypocricy.

    Physician, time to call the coroner, as you are getting critical!!!



    Allegedly, not proven. I haven't admitted to that at all, nor have I
    made any rules. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    Ummmm... can you think of any more lame adjectives to use?

    You don't understand the difference between a statment of fact and a
    rhetorical statement. I said, "In that worldview..." I never said
    I was a hypocrite. I personally don't believe that anyone using
    electric power is a hypocrite. But it's obvious that you believe so,
    including yourself.


    zzzzzzzz... Oh what, were you saying something? Sorry.

    It's obvious that you think I'm a hypocrite for using electric power
    because you think it kills humans. You've really tried hard to take
    my words out of context to make it seem so in your mind, while
    ignoring what I've really said. You've done a real first class of
    childish name-calling to try to prove your point.

    So in your mind, you've defined the truth as you see it about me and
    others who don't follow your way of life. Granted.

    Given that, what are you going to do about your OWN hypocricy? Does
    pointing a bloody finger back at others absolve you of the blood on
    your hands?

    Keep calling other people hypcrites and stupid lazy liars if you want,
    but that does nothing to take away the ugly stain and shame on your
    life. If I were you I'd unplug from the electric power grid. Yes,
    please do, we wouldn't have to see your rantings here.


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 11, 2006
  11. WHID

    smb Guest

    Sorry, the thread was started here by someone else, and Derek jumped
    in with guns ablazing.

    I've set no rules for anyone to follow, Derek's wild charges aside. If
    you've paid attention you'll see that someone named Rick must have
    pushed his buttons. I simply agreed in principal with that
    individual's point. I'm just the target of Derek's rantings because
    of that, and I'm not going to let him make his childish accusations
    and name-calling without a proper response.

    You're right, to bring the discussion back to photography, do you
    think that anyone who promotes veganism and uses gelatin-based film is
    a hypocrite?

    Steve






     
    smb, Dec 11, 2006
  12. WHID

    smb Guest


    You're still missing it. I have made no rules whatsoever to follow.
    and I said quite clearly that Rick can speak for himself. I have no
    need to defend him. I don't care if you think I'm a hypocrite
    because, quite frankly, based on your rude behavior you aren't worth
    giving the time of day to. But it is entertaining to see you self
    implode with each post.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 11, 2006
  13. WHID

    smb Guest


    Sorry you feel that way. Derek is the one making mindless
    accusations of 'stupid lying hypocrite' based on things he's made up.
    If you bother to read the thread fully you'll see that clearly.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 11, 2006
  14. WHID

    smb Guest


    If you had read, you would have seen that I never was defending Rick,
    I just agreed with the principle of what he said. I even disagreed
    with his method of delivering his message. You've openly lied about
    what I've said. I'm just an easy target for your rants because I'm
    foolish enough not to simply ignore your rude posts. I haven't
    resorted to childish and inane name-calling like you have, so who's
    the greater fool?


    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 11, 2006
  15. WHID

    Pete Guest

    You said (from Derek's posts) -

    "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."

    and

    "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."

    Those statements/rules/standards or whatever you want to call them are yours
    not Derek's. You made them and expect the vegans on that group to follow
    them or suffer being called hypocrites. You don't follow the nature of those
    rules - so - like Derek said you are the hypocrite and not the vegans.


    Derek's wild charges aside. If
    You ignored every challenge he made to your points and when he asked you for
    the third time to respond to them you pasted a stock answer to his challeges
    instead. That's why he became enraged. You drew him on and when the heat
    became too much and you found it impossible to go point to point with him
    you gave up and tried to back out by saying you never made those rules.

    and I'm not going to let him make his childish accusations
    I have no thoughts on the matter - BUT - you clearly think they are
    hypocites!! You said, "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." The point
    Derek is trying to make is that if you think vegans are hypocrites for doing
    things that kill animals you must also think that people are hypocrites for
    doing things that kill people. You do things that kill people, therefore by
    your own set of rules you are open to the charge of hypocrisy. Derek put it
    well. You asked him, "Where did I "freely admit" that I'm a hypocrite?" and
    he said "Here, by promoting human rights while at the same time refusing to
    beat that drum and do your bit to reduce the human collateral deaths which
    are a result of our industrial society. You make a rule and expect vegans to
    beat that drum and do all they can to reduce the collateral deaths
    associated with those they regard as rights holders (animals) while refusing
    to live by that same rule you've set them and do all you can to see a
    reduction in the collateral deaths associated with those you regard as
    rights holders (humans)." You invented the rule and all Derek is doing is
    throwing it back at you and showing you that you're the hypocrite for
    inventing it and refusing to stand by it by for going everthing that kills
    people.


     
    Pete, Dec 12, 2006
  16. WHID

    Derek Guest

    smb stumbled into an animal-related group to attack
    the vegans there by trying to hold them bound to a
    rule or standard of his own making that can only be
    met if they cause no animal deaths at all, ever. He
    is working under the misconception that the vegan
    cannot, under any circumstances, cause the deaths
    of animals. If they do, by using gelatin-based film
    or electricity from power stations, for example, they
    are hypocrites for failing to live by his rule.

    Rather than considering the philosophy behind
    veganism, smb makes the error in focusing on the
    failings of its adherents and then declares that the
    philosophy must be invalid, its adherents hypocrites.
    What he refuses to accept, to force his argument, is
    that vegans acknowledge the fact that, in a World
    where it is practically impossible to divest oneself of
    all animal products and derivatives, vegans understand
    that veganism is not about personal perfection or
    purity, but rather the avoidance and elimination of
    exploitation of and cruelty to animals."

    [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was
    coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at
    once adopted by the group who founded The
    Vegan Society in England later that year. The
    Vegan Society was the first organized secular
    group to promote a compassionate lifestyle.
    Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted
    as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

    "Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
    forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the
    animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for
    life. It applies to the practice of living on the
    products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion
    of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
    its derivatives, and encourages the use of
    alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
    or in part from animals.

    In its Articles of Association, the legal documents
    of the Society, a slightly different version is
    presented:

    "Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of
    living which seeks to exclude - as far as is
    possible and practical - all forms of exploitation
    of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or
    any other purpose; and by extension, promotes
    the development and use of animal-free
    alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals,
    and the environment."

    Both interpretations begin by stating that
    veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy."
    Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of
    compassionate living, because in vegan practice
    no one area is more significant than another; all
    are expected to be implemented simultaneously.
    In the second version, a disclaimer about
    practicality has been inserted, revealing that the
    founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally
    divesting oneself of all animal products and
    derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is
    also critical because it helps practitioners
    understand that veganism is not about personal
    perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance
    and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to
    animals.]
    http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

    Vegans, like humanitarians readily acknowledge that
    they live in a World where it is impossible to live and
    not be a small part in the killing of their respective
    rights-holding subjects. smb accepts the humanitarian's
    position while rejecting the vegan's, and I find that
    hypocritical because he's clearly "feigning some desirable
    or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life,
    opinions, or statements that belie his public statements."
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical

    smb made a public statement;

    "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."

    Yet his private life belies that public statement; he
    promotes human rights but kills them via his use of
    electricity from power stations. He is feigning a
    desirable attitude that belies his public statements.
    So, rather than show that the vegan is a hypocrite,
    by making that rule and failing to follow it in his
    personal life he has shown that he is the hypocrite.
     
    Derek, Dec 12, 2006
  17. WHID

    smb Guest

    That's an if-then statement, not a declaration of absolute truth.
    Sorry you missed the point. I was speaking of Rick, not Derek.

    Notice that my statement was strictly limited to vegans, not the
    general population. Of course I don't follow the nature of that
    statement because I'm not a vegan. Therefore I simply cannot be a
    hypocrite based on that statement. That dog won't hunt.

    Also notice that I never said I expected them to do anything. It was
    simply an observation.

    It's noble that you are trying to defend Derek here, and I appreciate
    that you haven't stooped to his level of childish name-calling. But
    you both simply misunderstand what I said.

    Not true. I answered his questions, but he did not like the
    responses. He became enraged when I snipped parts of his response for
    brevity sake. I have no difficulty at all going point to point with
    him, as soon as he begins to make logical points. But when he uses
    phrases like, "stupid lying lazy hypocrite," of course I will give him
    stock answers because that is what he deserves.

    Again, I made no rules. That's his/your interpretation.

    If he wants to grow up and ask civil questions in a mature manner, of
    course I will discuss anything he likes.


    What you and Derek miss is that I was simply summarizing Rick's point
    of view. It's still a fair summary. Derek's really yelling at Rick
    through me simply because I agreed in principle with what Rick said. I
    don't even know Rick other than what he has written here.

    You missed the several times when I said that it doesn't matter what
    he thinks of the hypocricy of others, that doesn't change his
    hypocricy in the slightest.

    I've stated clearly what "my" rules are. I have no problem whatsoever
    with vegans or non-vegans using electric power in spite of the fact
    that animals may be killed in the process. However, I pointed out
    that HE might have a problem because the killing of animals opens him
    up to charges of hypocricy, since his worldview of animals is
    different from most everybody else's.

    Your both missing where I said several times that I do not believe
    that industrial society has that issue because electric power results
    in a net gain in human lives. He believes it kills humans. I do
    not. Therefore I simply cannot be a hypocrite by using electric
    power. He said I freely admitted to being a hypocrite. That's an
    open and blatant lie based on his interpretation of something else I
    said.
    Again, it was an observation, not a rule. A rule is where someone
    must do something. I never insisted that Derek or anyone else do
    anything.


    I know he was trying to throw it back at me. The problem was the
    moronic and childish way he went about it. Therefore I simply refused
    to acknowledge his points. When he learns to play nice I will gladly
    answer any questions he has.

    Regardless, even *if* he was successful at throwing it back, the best
    that he would be able to show is that I am also a hypocrite... not
    "the" hypocrite. (But as I've explained, I can't be a hypocrite
    because I don't set or follow any rules for anyone.) But even if I
    was, that would not change his hypocrisy IF he believes animals should
    be protected and IF he knowingly does things that puts them in harm's
    way.

    Thank you for the breath of fresh air, I hope you understand what I'm
    saying.




    Steve


     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
  18. WHID

    smb Guest


    Wrong. Pay attention.

    I've never been in your newsgroup. The reason my posts are appearing
    there are because the thread I've been responding to has been
    cross-posted from the photography group. Whoever started the thread
    here did that, not me. I have no interest whatsoever in stumbling
    into your group and arguing animal rights.

    I'm just responding to your rude behavior.
    'What you keep missing is that I was referring to your rude treatment
    of Rick in that statement. I was NOT making a rule for you or anyone
    else to follow. Pay attention. Notice I started the statement with
    the word "if." I was defining what Rick's hypocricy would be IF he
    were promoting such and such. I cannot fathom why you think I was
    making a rule. It just ain't happening.

    Your argument is with Rick, not me.

    Nope, you're simply basing that conclusion on a false premise. Where
    did I say I promoted human rights? You don't know anything about my
    private life. I could be your next door neighbor for all you know.
    Where did I say that I was proclaiming some kind of rule that everyone
    should follow? You just made that up. You also ignored what my
    beliefs actually are, which is that electric power produces a net gain
    in human lives, therefore based on my beliefs I simply cannot be a
    hypocrite.

    What you have done is just picked up on some words you misunderstood
    and took it upon yourself to make an example of someone. However, you
    failed miserably, only showing the world that you are fluent in
    name-calling and hysterics.

    If you want to discuss anything, do it as a rational human being and
    I'll be happy to.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
  19. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Dead right.

    Dead right again.
    I always pay attention, and that's how I always manage
    to catch the liars and hypocrites like you out.
    You've been posting to talk.politics.animals on a daily
    basis since the 18th of November, liar, so why claim
    you've never been there when Google archives show
    that you have?
    There's no reference to my alleged rude treatment of
    Rick in that statement, so stop lying. That statement
    clearly refers to Rick or anyone who uses electric
    power while beating the drum of stopping the human
    collateral deaths resulting from their use of it in their
    industrial society, and that they are hypocrites for using
    that power according to your rule.
    Yes, you was, but I've put a stop to all your nonsense
    now by showing that it is you who's the hypocrite for
    making that rule and refusing to live by it rather than the
    vegan who doesn't make that rule.
    "Because they are animals, not human beings. The
    concept of "rights"is a legal term that applies only
    to humans."

    and

    "The fact is that humans have rights by virtue of the
    fact of being human. The entire concept of "rights"
    is a human invention."

    are just two examples found in this thread where
    you've promoted human rights, you incompetent liar.
     
    Derek, Dec 12, 2006
  20. WHID

    Derek Guest

    If you're now conceding that your statement was not
    a declaration of absolute truth, why should I or anyone
    believe it to be a true statement or bother to take any
    notice of it, you stupid jerk?
    That's another lie. It's clear from your statement that
    you were referring to "Rick or ANYONE", and that
    necessarily includes me along with ANYONE, you
    incompetent liar.
    Then it's clear that you hold a double standard as well
    as being a hypocrite and a liar. You hold vegans to a rule
    which you don't expect the general population to follow.
    Thanks for clearing that up.
    Rather, you refuse to follow the nature of your own
    statements and rules because you hold a double
    standard; one for the vegans and another for yourself.
    Thanks for clearing that up.
    No, you did not, even after the third time of my asking,
    and when you did you just pasted a stock non-response
    to each challenge, insisting that you'd already explained
    yourself. Stop lying, hypocrite.
    You had your chance in going point to point with me but
    whiffed off saying, "Why waste my time going point to
    point with you?" I replied, "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."
    You are stupid, you do lie to get yourself out of trouble,
    you are lazy for pasting a stock non-response to each of
    my challenges after the third time of asking, and you are a
    hypocrite for the reasons already given. I see no reason
    why I can't call you what you've shown yourself to be.
    What makes you think I want to discuss anything with a
    proven liar who's too lazy to address my challenges and
    a rank hypocrite of the worst kind, dummy?
    No, we're not missing anything, so stop lying.
    No, Pete doesn't seem to have missed anything at all.
    Hang on. You've been saying all along that you haven't
    stated ANY rules, you incompetent liar.
    No, we're not missing anything.
    You certainly have insisted that I must do something or face
    the charge of hypocrisy, you incompetent liar.
    No, the problem for you was that when your nonsense got
    thrown back at you, you then tried to distance yourself from
    it by pretending you never made that nonsense in the first
    place.
    You've only just finished insisting that you DID acknowledge
    my points, but now you've admitted that you refused to.
    You just don't know when to stop lying, do you?
     
    Derek, Dec 13, 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.