Re: Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths

Rupert hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, Rupert laughed madly, then wrote:

>On Jul 6, 7:04 am, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
wrote:

>> But thinking you are going to "reduce suffering" on a global level by
>> going vegan is getting a little absurd to me. 

>
>Well, my charitable donations definitely reduce suffering. 

I said "on a global level".  You aren't paying attention to what I'm
actually saying.


>> because I think
>> suffering is inherent in life,
>
>Irrelevant.
>

My point is, saying you have an "overall strategy to reduce suffering"
is absurd because suffering is inherent in life.  It's perfectly clear
in the context of what I was saying, but replying piecemeal, paragraph
by paragraph, you've evaded the point.  Which is typical on usenet.

>> but imposing that morality on others is
>> the logical extension of the idea of a "strategy to reduce suffering".
>>
>
>Well, I advocate it to others, I don't impose it. I would be in favour
>of some forms of agriculture being banned, but who wouldn't?
>

This is another good example of responding piecemeal and evading the
point.  I was talking about imposing veganism on others, now you are
talking about banning forms of agriculture.  The one is completely
unrelated to the other, but you are just going through, thinking of
some response to each paragraph, thinking that constitutes a
substantial reply.  But here you are talking about something
completely out of left field and unrelated to anything, and nowhere
are you really replying to any of what I'm actually saying.

***

And so on.

I've pointed out three times now where your responses are completely
disconnected from what I'm talking about.  I've read all of what you
say following, but all of it is likewise.  If you want to acknowledge
that those first three unrelated responses are unrelated and want to
have a conversation, let me konw.  I don't see a lot of point in
explaining another twenty cases of the same thing.  As I say, this is
very common on usenet when somebody's position is threatened.

I would suggest you print out what I wrote, sit somewhere quiet, and
read it through in its entirety, without composing any response until
you're through.  I've done the same thing you're doing;  responding
paragraph-by-paragraph to a usenet post, then looked back later and
realized I had missed the point.  The only way to avoid that is to
read carefully for context.



-- 
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Sup****t Specialist
http://joecosby.com/

Fool me once, Shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, you must work for the government.

:: Currently listening to Dream On, 1973, by Aerosmith