On Jul 2, 1:04=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> You sure did slink away quietly from the "inefficiency" issue. =A0I
showed=
> conclusively that ****witted "vegans" see their bull**** "inefficiency"
> argument against meat as something entirely separate from an
> environmental argument, and you just threw in the white towel, after
> waving it weakly for a few minutes.
>
> What the **** possessed you to argue for so long from such a weak
> position of ignorance, anyway? =A0I guess it must have been your usual
> partisan****p.
Just to comment on this one more time, Ball. As soon as you provided
actual citations to sup****t your contention, as was your obligation, I
immediately conceded your point and congratulated you on genuinely
winning for a change, as opposed to merely deluding yourself into
thinking you had won. I personally don't see this as being in any way
weak. On the other hand, when I conclusively proved that
"axiomatisable" was a real word, you comically continued to insist
that it wasn't in sheer desperation, and then fell silent about the
issue hoping that eventually people would get tired of talking about
it. That's the difference between being a real man and being a comical
coward.
What possessed me not to concede that some people made the
"inefficiency" argument that you were talking about? I'd never seen
anyone make it before. No shame in that. It's your job to show that
some people make it.
It doesn't appear in the text Pearl posted. There's a sentence in the
first paragraph saying "growing food for animals is a waste of
resources in an overcrowded world". The principle of charity requires
you to interpret that as an environmental argument, and indeed I still
think that's most likely what was actually intended.
|
