Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Iwannaplato]

And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

The one you are making claims about.

Do 'you' even know 'the one' that 'you' are making claims about?

The one you are making claims about.

The one? You used the word 'me' above, though not like that, but rather without citation marks. What do you mean when you use that word?

More or less what 'you' mean when you use that word.

That seems unlikely. I don't put that word in citation marks most of the time.

You don't usually use it. Suddenly, it's there, naked of citation marks.

There are lots of words that I, also, do not usually use.

Why didn't you use citation marks this time? Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you usually just write me, without citation marks, unlike 'you' for example. But that's where my question is coming from: it seemed like you had a pattern of putting personal pronouns, both subject and object pronouns in citation marks. Here you didn't. Perhaps you just forgot. No biggie, but that's why I am asking.

[Iwannaplato]

And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, to be open, honest, clear, and direct.

This one has proven "itself", once more, to be sneaky, hiding, deceitful, and very, very allusive.

Which makes some wonder what this one, really, has to hide and keep secret here.

"some'...LOL.

Now, obviously you have claimed that you 'must' believe what you do when you assert things here. you have also tried to claim that though you 'believe' what you assert you also do not 'absolutely believe' what you assert.

No, I didn't try. I claimed that.

Which just makes some wonder why you cannot be 'absolutely sure' of what 'you believe', and, why would you even begin to 'believe' any thing when it could be just completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect anyway?

"some" LOL. Funny (new?) habit you have. Here a hint regarding your question: the device you are using to communicate here was built by people using the heuristic not of 100% certainty by rather a methodology that includes revision and best current beliefs. Not only at the theory level and at the practical level. That's a very tiny bit of the answer, but you depend all the time on people who you also look down on.

I know, I know. That's all false and wrong...to you.

But now, at least, you've made it clear why you have to pretend you know all sorts of things.

Although 'the answers' to these are already known, absolutely, by some of 'us' here, some are, still, wondering why you, still, cannot yet 'see' and 'comprehend' the absolute ridiculousness of what you do here?

Yup, no response to the justification for what I pointed out. Evasive. Some will see this and think less of you. (thanks for the funny silly habit of using in the ways you did in this response; of course, it's far more likely there is a real 'some' reacting like I do to you, than that you are part of some 'some')

If you can remember, but for some reason don't trust the answer you received, you should understand that asking a source you do not trust again, is wasting everyone's time, since you don't trust the source.

Well since this is not applicable at all, it is just another moot thing you are trying to make here.

Oh, thank you for trusting my answer then.

The patterns of my responses to you are in part the direct result of your own behavior. I have explained this before. You seem want to continue to play the games I don't think you are aware you are playing - trying to hook into shame and guilt, to embarrass with how I appear to your hallucinated 'some', etc. These will not work on me. You just look silly and bitter. As do the interpretations of my behavior, in relation to you, which you interpret with continuous ego-syntonic bias.

Other people have and will continue to react to you for similar reasons in similar ways.

[Atla]

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

Not at all, quite the contrary, self-abusiveness usually assumes a complete person but Age isn't one.

An alter?

No I'm talking about one of the ultimate taboos which we almost never break because the implications can make life not worth living. Most people gleefully don't even realize that there is this taboo.

Not all Homo sapiens can be seen as psychologically human because they are missing core parts of what makes us human. Age isn't human just a dysfunctional part of a human. Age seems to lack the capacity for self-reflection while also having a whole lot of other issues. But there is no human psychology without self-reflection.

Words like human, people, person have built in psychological assumptions and the world would be a drastically different place if most people realized that say about 3-5% of Homo sapiens don't actually meet those assumptions, we just project onto them the belief that they do.

The other one on this forum that isn't human is IC (and maybe Skepdick). I see every day that people treat IC like it was human, because they are under the illusion.

[Age]

And, some are, now, wondering how odd you, still, believe, absolutely, that it is a fallacy.

Back to your hallucination-based adverb.

When some thing actually does happen or occurs, then there is no hallucination. What I said and claimed here can be proved to have happened and occurred. So, once again, there is no hallucination here, at all.

Your beliefs are showing.

Once again, this one is informed of some thing but while it is believing otherwise it is an absolute impossibility for 'this one' to comprehend, understand, and accept what it is informed of and about. Even when what it is informed of and about is irrefutably True and Correct.

So, thanks to this one, again, and what it is doing here is continually further proving what I have been saying, showing, and claiming here all along as being absolutely True and Right.

Obviously, and which you have already fully agreed with and accepted is that you just saying and claiming that they are not justified is not necessarily true nor right, at all.

Ah, you remember that I have said such things. And yet, you keep saying over and over that I consider my assertions absolutely true. Then when it is convenient you suddenly remember what I have said about my assertions.

At least I have chosen to when announce them, again. Unlike you who pretends to completely forget and to just keep saying what you do.

That made no sense. I think it is false, but it doesn't rise to a clear thought.

So, what, supposedly, makes 'no sense', to 'this one', 'this one' will, still, just think 'it' is false anyway.

So, it could be said and argued that what you just said and wrote here does not make sense, nor is a clear thought, neither.

And, once again 'this one' is showing and revealing just how much 'these ones', back then, would just presume some thing is either true, or false, based upon nothing at all other than on who they believe they are talking with and what their 'current' beliefs are of 'that one'.

Also, what you think is false, but, supposedly, did not rise to a clear thought, to you, you provided another absolutely clear example of in the very post I am responding to here. Thus you have, once more, proved irrefutably what I was referring to here. Which, again, you claim did not make absolutely any sense at all but which you still think is false, although it still, supposedly, did not rise to a clear thought, to you, here.

Now, that you have admitted that you just saying and claiming that it is not justified in no way whatsoever means that it is not justified, then 'the readers' know what the actual Truth here is, exactly.

You falsely reworded what I said and yet again use this fallacy.

Until you show that I have, actually, reworded what you said, what you say and claim here is not yet substantiated, and thus not yet justified.

I can show and prove how what I just said and claimed was not reworded, and so backs up and supports what I say and claim here.

Further, you haven't admitted you were wrong that I believe things I write absolutely, but nevertheless write, now, since it is convenient as if you accept what goes against your assertions.

But, I can prove that you write things in a way as to appear as though they are absolutely. LOL you very own writings prove this fact.

This is really base lack of integrity.

If one wants to see a lack of integrity here, then one can see this very clearly throughout this forum.

See, when you posters come here, into a philosophy forum of all places, make claims, but when questioned over those claims, for clarity sake, but no clarity is ever provided, then this, really is a base lack of integrity. And, it could be said and argued that when you posters accuse others of saying or doing things, but will not and do not back up and support those accusations, then this is even a level lower in showing integrity, itself.

Then they can 'look back at' 'my words' and 'see' for "themselves" that 'it' is self justified'. you obviously have not yet even attempted to back up and support your claim, so, again, what you have been claiming here is really nothing at all.

The level of back up claims I need to match in your claim that your statements are self-justified has been matched. Consider all my assertions self-justified. LOL

LOL 'this one' is actually, now, trying to claim that all it has to do is just say, to another, 'It is not justified', and this then means what it saying and claiming is self justified.

you are becoming more and more delusional as 'we' move along here "iwannaplato".

Once again, what I said in regards to eating meat is self justified.

And, the fact that no one, of as 'yet', has even attempted to show that it was not justified just reinforces that what I said was, and is, in fact, self justified.

you can 'feel' absolutely any way you want to 'for me'.

You say this kind of thing a lot.

Do I?

I'm not sure if you are aware but telling me I can do things that even morons would realize I can feel shows a basic lack of understanding not only of your readers but of reality.

LOL So, now, 'this one' does not seem to have realized the irony here. That is; it was 'this one' who actually told 'us' readers here what it is feeling, and thus what it can feel, which even so-called "morons" would realize that it can feel.

And, what did not go unnoticed is you left out the very sentence, which the point that I was making was in.

But, you have showed a tendency to try to deceive the readers a few times here previously, already.

See, what I was pointing out was that you can feel whatever you like, BUT this will never help you to prove 'your claim' here True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

Maybe if you read 'my writings' with a bit more openness, and a lot less closedness, then you might start actually seeing what I am meaning and/or pointing out here, instead of missing and misinterpreting so much here.

Unless you mean you grant me this ability. That would be even more embarrassing.

Both of these are moot, as you completely 'missed the mark' here, once more.

Once again, if you stopped making assumptions, and jumping to conclusions, based upon nothing but 'your own assumptions', when reading 'my words', and sought out and obtained actual clarity, first, then you would stop saying, and claiming, so many False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect things here.

But, obviously, absolutely nothing I have said, nor suggested, so far is leading you to stop making assumptions, and to stop jumping to conclusions. Which even you admit could be completely False and Wrong anyway.

[Age]

You only dear friend

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' 'about me' here, so let 'us' see if this time 'we' can get any actual clarity at it.

So, how did I, supposedly, kind of mangle 'my sentence', exactly?

And, your, supposed, 'gist' is that you actually believe that I am the only one ever who it would take just one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' to lose internet access, which means that, to you, one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' could never ever lose internet access to absolutely anyone else, right?

This is 'your gist', right?

If yes, then why do you, only, 'think' that I get 'your gist' here?

But, if what I just said and wrote is 'not right', then just Correct it.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

[Age]

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

LOL Spoken, exactly, like one who is completely deluded because of its well maintained beliefs.

[Atla]

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

LOL Spoken, exactly, like one who is completely deluded because of its well maintained beliefs.

bet you don't pay the internet bill tho

[Age]

And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

The one you are making claims about.

Do 'you' even know 'the one' that 'you' are making claims about?

The one you are making claims about.

The one? You used the word 'me' above, though not like that, but rather without citation marks. What do you mean when you use that word?

More or less what 'you' mean when you use that word.

That seems unlikely.

you say and claim this, although you have absolutely no idea at all.

I don't put that word in citation marks most of the time.

Which means 'what', exactly?

You don't usually use it. Suddenly, it's there, naked of citation marks.

There are lots of words that I, also, do not usually use.

Why didn't you use citation marks this time?

Because of what I was pointing out, showing, and/or discussing about, this time.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

you appear to keep forgetting that what is being thought, within 'that body', which has not yet been expressed here, in this forum, is not yet, necessarily, known by 'us' at all.

Perhaps you usually just write me, without citation marks, unlike 'you' for example.

Do you believe that I write the word 'you' in what you call 'citation marks' more frequently than I do without citation marks?

But that's where my question is coming from: it seemed like you had a pattern of putting personal pronouns, both subject and object pronouns in citation marks.

If that what is seems like, to you, then okay.

Here you didn't. Perhaps you just forgot. No biggie, but that's why I am asking.

Okay.

But, then again, here I did.

[Iwannaplato]

No I'm talking about one of the ultimate taboos which we almost never break because the implications can make life not worth living. Most people gleefully don't even realize that there is this taboo.

It's not a taboo for me and interesting to see it mentioned here. There was a period where I referred to partial humans. But I put an asterisk, at least for myself, because many people think the ideal person is a partial person, so what they present is only a portion of themselves. I have my own opinions about specific cases, of course.

[Iwannaplato]

When some thing actually does happen or occurs, then there is no hallucination. What I said and claimed here can be proved to have happened and occurred. So, once again, there is no hallucination here, at all.

No, you can't prove that your use of 'absolutely' applies here. But, please, throw some words at the screen in what you think will be a proof. What is this proof?

[Iwannaplato]

Evasive as usual.

[Iwannaplato]

It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

It may be 'like' that in the sense that we don't do certain things, but it's really poor mind-reading otherwise. You have a number of habits that make you a terrible interlocutor:
you allude, often, where others would give information
you simply state that something is false, with no justification and also no saying what is true or happening, slowing the whole process down
you end up not giving information, even if one patiently wades through the above and what I mention below
you respond to questions with questions instead of answers - what other people say always requires clarification, but you respond to questions with questions, often, so in the end other people are always in the position of justifying and clarifying. If they decide to not accept this imbalance, you judge them for it, often referring to them in the 3rd person, sometimes referring to them as 'it', sometimes including general negative judgments of people at the time this is being written.

That's a partial list of your behaviors as an conversation partner.
So, here's what you do. You assume that you know why we react to you the way we do. Your assumption is ego-syntonic. It could only be caused by negative qualities about other people and not by your behavior and attitudes.

and then there's the literal/metaphorical confusion you have, both in specific instances and then your general conclusion that you are writing literally all the time.

People's behavior in relation to you changed after they tried a variety of approachs and had the experiences they had. So, now you get pared down reactions to your BS.

And here you've assumed that your so-called self-justified, irrefutable position is something I disagree with, for example. I don't think you've proven much of anything, but your opinion fits rather well with what I do. Of course, it is so vague, it is pretty useless. You're always jumping to conclusions. But you can only see it in others.

I do find it amusing how much you sounded like Iambiguous in your response to FJ here.

[attofishpi]

WILL THIS THREAD JUST DROP DEAD..!

1. NO, eating meat is NOT barbaric.
2. Killing animals for food is ok, slightly uncomfortable for an animal but not barbaric.

Barbaric:
extremely cruel and unpleasant

[Flannel Jesus]

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' 'about me' here, so let 'us' see if this time 'we' can get any actual clarity at it.

So, how did I, supposedly, kind of mangle 'my sentence', exactly?

And, your, supposed, 'gist' is that you actually believe that I am the only one ever who it would take just one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' to lose internet access, which means that, to you, one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' could never ever lose internet access to absolutely anyone else, right?

This is 'your gist', right?

If yes, then why do you, only, 'think' that I get 'your gist' here?

But, if what I just said and wrote is 'not right', then just Correct it.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

I'm not reading all that, can you give me the cliff notes crazy boy?

[Age]

And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, to be open, honest, clear, and direct.

This one has proven "itself", once more, to be sneaky, hiding, deceitful, and very, very allusive.

Which makes some wonder what this one, really, has to hide and keep secret here.

"some'...LOL.

Do you believe that it could actually be far more?

Now, obviously you have claimed that you 'must' believe what you do when you assert things here. you have also tried to claim that though you 'believe' what you assert you also do not 'absolutely believe' what you assert.

No, I didn't try. I claimed that.

Okay. So, you claim that you, absolutely, do not 'absolutely believe' absolutely anything, right?

If this is not right, then what do you claim here, exactly?

Which just makes some wonder why you cannot be 'absolutely sure' of what 'you believe', and, why would you even begin to 'believe' any thing when it could be just completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect anyway?

"some" LOL.

Why have you put the letters 'lol' after the 'some' word here, twice?

Funny (new?) habit you have.

What, exactly, is a, supposed, 'funny (new) habit' of mine, 'now'?

Here a hint regarding your question: the device you are using to communicate here was built by people using the heuristic not of 100% certainty by rather a methodology that includes revision and best current beliefs. Not only at the theory level and at the practical level. That's a very tiny bit of the answer, but you depend all the time on people who you also look down on.

But, I have never ever 'looked down upon' any of you, human beings.

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

Furthermore, if you also ever come to uncover, or learn, and understand these things, as well, then you will also learn and understand the exact reason why I never look down on you, people.

Also, your definition of the 'heuristic' word here might be very different from my definition of that word.

I know, I know. That's all false and wrong...to you.

So then why say it, and claim it as though it is true?

But now, at least, you've made it clear why you have to pretend you know all sorts of things.

When did I, supposedly, do this, exactly?

Once again, what 'we' can clearly see here is 'this one' making assumptions again, in regards to 'my words', and then believing that its 'own assumptions' are true and right, and so then 'concluding' other things as well.

Unfortunately though for 'this one' its first assumption/s were completely False and Wrong, and therefore the rest of its conclusions are also False, and Wrong, besides being completely moot too.

Although 'the answers' to these are already known, absolutely, by some of 'us' here, some are, still, wondering why you, still, cannot yet 'see' and 'comprehend' the absolute ridiculousness of what you do here?

Yup, no response to the justification for what I pointed out. Evasive. Some will see this and think less of you. (thanks for the funny silly habit of using in the ways you did in this response; of course, it's far more likely there is a real 'some' reacting like I do to you, than that you are part of some 'some')

Obviously 'you' have a very different definition of and for the 'some' word than 'I' do. But, you will not let this distract from your belief that how you respond is true and correct, but which on a lot of occasions was not even in relation to what I was talking about and meaning.

Also, would you like to clarify in regards to what, supposed, 'justification', exactly, which you are referring to here, which you also, supposedly, pointed out?

If no, then why not?

What do you, seriously, have to 'fear' or 'hide' here, exactly?

If you can remember, but for some reason don't trust the answer you received, you should understand that asking a source you do not trust again, is wasting everyone's time, since you don't trust the source.

Well since this is not applicable at all, it is just another moot thing you are trying to make here.

Oh, thank you for trusting my answer then.

I trust that the so-called 'answer' you provided you believe is true and/or correct. Although you, "yourself", do not believe that it is absolutely true and/or correct, and so you do not have full trust in 'your own answer', anyway.

But, I certainly do not put my trust in 'your answer' being true or right. That is; until actual clarification and/or proof is provided.

Also, what you just did here seems to be another very common habit of yours. you have provided a great example of 'black and white thinking', as well as of just how quick you will 'jump' from 'one conclusion' to another, without ever seeking out nor obtaining any actual clarity/clarification, at all.

The patterns of my responses to you are in part the direct result of your own behavior. I have explained this before. You seem want to continue to play the games I don't think you are aware you are playing - trying to hook into shame and guilt, to embarrass with how I appear to your hallucinated 'some', etc.

Just so you, might, become fully aware, a lot of what you perceive and/or believe I am doing here is all a 'figment' of 'your own imagination'.

But, please do not consider this at all, and just keep re-repeating what you already believe is true.

These will not work on me.

Yes, I know these will not work on you.

You just look silly and bitter.

If this is how I look, to you, then this is perfectly fine, with me.

As do the interpretations of my behavior, in relation to you, which you interpret with continuous ego-syntonic bias.

If you ever do learn who and what 'I' am, exactly, then you will also understand what the actual Truth here is, exactly.

Other people have and will continue to react to you for similar reasons in similar ways.

And, other people will continue to react to you for the reasons they do.

Also, yes no response to the actual justification I have made here.