Please don't feed the trolls!
Posted by rswhitaker on Feb 03, 2010 · Member since Jan 2010 · 273 posts
Trolls are lonely, isolated beings. Their only means of feeling significant is to publicly spout off about how smart they are. . . how right they are in there beliefs and how everyone else is wrong. They need attention so they will do anything to get it, usually by insulting groups and individuals. They feed off your responses. Don't feed them and maybe they will just go away.
Don't worry, Narcissus. VegWeb has been around for a long time. It will be here long after this disappears from our memory.
Don't worry, Narcissus. VegWeb has been around for a long time. It will be here long after this disappears from our memory.
Oh, I'm aware. I'm just interested to see how this plays out.
Every egomaniac believes he deserves it. And I suppose the reason others don't want to debate with you is because they're aware that it is impossible to browbeat a psychotic delusion out of its sufferer. I, on the other hand, don't have cable television, and find this entertaining.
I think I love you.
Don't worry, Narcissus. VegWeb has been around for a long time. It will be here long after this disappears from our memory.
Oh, I'm aware. I'm just interested to see how this plays out.
I know...this thread is kinda like a train wreck, or a sore tooth...you know you shouldn't mess with it but you can't help it. ;D ::)
No, daleks are just an emotionless society entirely without compassion or all that 'touchy-feely' stuff you seem to disdain so fervently. Perhaps it is not so apt a comparison - on the upside, at least they have some sense of community. In your utopia I suppose everyone is a bit more like Sweeney Todd.
I am not anti-emotion, I am anti-violence. I am a very emotional person myself, and I value many emotion-driven sentiments in other people. You will often find me defending people's right to do irrational things for subjective emotional satisfaction, for example. But you do not have the right to impose your emotions on other people through the barrel of a gun! Why is this so hard to understand?!
If you can dictate to people how they are allowed to treat their animals, someone else might decide to dictate to you what you may do with your property; what you eat, what you wear, or how many times you pray to Mao, Jesus, or Allah each day! A stable civilized society is impossible without individual freedom amongst its rational economic actors (i.e. human adults who are not scientifically documented as criminals or insane). The price you pay for your freedom is the necessity of recognizing the freedom of others!
I am not anti-emotion, I am anti-violence. I am a very emotional person myself, and I value many emotion-driven sentiments in other people. You will often find me defending people's right to do irrational things for subjective emotional satisfaction, for example. But you do not have the right to impose your emotions on other people through the barrel of a gun! Why is this so hard to understand?!
If you can dictate to people how they are allowed to treat their animals, someone else might decide to dictate to you what you may do with your property; what you eat, what you wear, or how many times you pray to Mao, Jesus, or Allah each day! A stable civilized society is impossible without individual freedom amongst its rational economic actors (i.e. human adults who are not scientifically documented as criminals or insane). The price you pay for your freedom is the necessity of recognizing the freedom of others!
Right, but I fail to see how it's more violent to impose a fine on someone who abuses their 'property' (nauseous as application of that term to a conscious being makes me) than it is for that person to be abusive in the first place.
That is a substantial cognitive failure on your part, which we can discuss on the "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'Animal Rights'" thread, but ignorance of Natural Law is not a valid excuse to murder, rape, abduct, or steal from others! (The same doesn't apply to arbitrary government laws, which good people will ignore freely.) Human beings have rights. Animals cannot.
Animals aren't property. They're living beings. The government has rules on how you can and cannot treat your children right? So I think that if they want to make sure other living beings in your custody aren't suffering, they should be applauded.
The sad sad fact of the matter some people are cruel and irresponsible with the lives of those left in their care, and because of that, certain guidelines are set in place.
And if you are going to speak of "animal right delusion" perhaps you shouldn't be posting in VEGAN forums.
How do you know animals don't have rights? Because they can be captured? Broken? tortured? Because we can't communicate with them? Because we thing they're inferior? What is it?
Because people didn't used to think African Americans and those of Jewish decent deserved to have rights either, and look how wrong society was then.
Maybe our views aren't the delusional ones, but the rational ones in a time and society where they have not yet been recognized as such.
Hespy, Narcissus and others: Y'all might find this sort of thing amuzing....
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/index.htm
Powerful post, Fufu!
I would add to that - there are people with developmental or physical problems whose IQ and level of communication is below that of some smart animals. Do we discount their rights because they can't communicate with us? Nope. Where do we draw the line? "Species" seems so utterly reductive and "ability" or "communication" doesn't do it when we have situations in which a highly trained animal can perform tasks which a small child can't.
That is a substantial cognitive failure on your part, which we can discuss on the "Anarcho-Capitalist criticism of 'Animal Rights'" thread, but ignorance of Natural Law is not a valid excuse to murder, rape, abduct, or steal from others! (The same doesn't apply to arbitrary government laws, which good people will ignore freely.) Human beings have rights. Animals cannot.
So it only counts as murder and rape if the victim has two legs and theory of mind? It only counts as harm if the person in question is a cog in your capitalist machinery?
Your 'Natural Law' is a joke. Protecting property is a waste of government time. Protecting lives and safety and health are the real concerns. And I'm not arrogant or blind enough to limit my definition of 'life' just to those who can run a business.
(I'd like to confine my activity on this forum to one debate thread, so I'm going to quote from here and reply there instead.)
If this is just a cooking forum then how do you explain the "fines for leaving animals out in the cold" thread, which is what got me to sign up here in the first place. Violent irrationality as harmful as that must not go unanswered!
Thats funny, the reason I signed up on the first place was for the vegan/vegetarian recipes that are here, and the advice people have to give on how to become a vegetarian/vegan. Isn't that the real point of this website?
Mr. Libman, are you even a vegan/vegetarian? I think you may be on the wrong website.
He said earlier that he eats a vegan diet because he doesn't eat foods that are taxed by the government.
If I remember correctly.
And something along the lines of being vegan is more economical because you have to feed animals a lot of food to fatten them up and use them, therefore wasting food that can be eaten... i dunno it kinda makes sense in a way (that aspect)... But all the talk about animals just being tools for human use is pretty stupid... Especially on a vegan website
Pages