Pray for Realitybites

!Viva Hate!

pls scream inside your heart ⚧
It's name is a pun on placate which is to make someone less angry, I think she's a dude trying to be ironic and messing up her character halfway through the story then just becoming a train wreck. She gets away with murder from the mods, that is suspicious.

They are who they say they are. Their OKCupid account predated them joining Solo.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
They are who they say they are. Their OKCupid account predated them joining Solo.

Premeditated. There's something way off about her.

I KNOW I'm the CASSANDRA of solo but I'm serious, she's massively inconsistent and I'm not going to chalk it up to toke posting. Puff, puff, post.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
They are who they say they are. Their OKCupid account predated them joining Solo.

Orrrrrrr, what's to stop whoever from using some random OKCupid pic as their own pic here?
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
You're under the impression I value WINNING FRIENDS AND INFLUENCING PEOPLE. That is not the game I play. I comment on ideas, not the people posting them. Also if you haven't noticed people rarely comment on the things I post, I am a ghost here. I got nothing to lose. But I can point out to the world how realitybites uses a system of manipulation and self preservation to slither in to our hearts as a fun-loving, educated sorority girl who in reality is a sick and depraved attention-starved control freak. She is McDonalds to me pushing HAPPY MEALS into our child minds then making us obese with her sick, twisted word play.

This reads like a treatise on mental illness. It's disturbing on several levels.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
It's certainly good for everybody else to see you implode so publicly. I had a feeling RB wouldn't be the first one to crack.

I'm not cracking JB, not in the mental way anyway. Can I call you column boy?

 

Playcat2000

New Member
Nope. That is Playcat2000.

I know what you look like, Viva. You’re a short and fat and you wear nerd glasses. If I knew this earlier I never would have let you flirt with me via the PMs. I’m not into dweebs.
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.


Jenny has always had a Cap'n Save-a-ho, an angry, insecure male on the site hated by everyone else whom she pumped up with compliments and who then took her side in every skirmish. Theo was the last super mental one. This old Theo alliance may play well while she's trawlin' for Republican pube-lickin'.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
So this carefully thought out comment ELOQUENTLY and EXPERTLY crafted:


realitybites.

I'm the anonymous you had the longest conversation with. (The educated high school dropout. / The one with Susan, Mike and Frank.) This is the second time I discuss animal rights with you. The first time took place about a month ago. (I still haven't forgotten your idea of 'moral agents'; I hope you've let that argument go, as it is incredibly irrelevant.)

Mainly you're great. You are an intelligent person. You're certainly more intelligent than 99% of the people I've had these conversations with. This makes me like and respect you. The thing that doesn't make me like and respect you is that some of your intelligence seems to be pseudo. You hold on to vague philosophical theories when often all you need is common sense. You lack backbone to say: ok, I may have been wrong this time, you seem to know more than I do.

After all: you obviously don't have a clear stance on animal rights. You don't really know what you think about the subject, or why you see things the way you do. You've yet to find a stable, rational basis for your beliefs. At the moment, the basis is merely emotional: you simply have this feeling that humans are more important than dogs, and you'd like to be able to rationalize it. That's not enough. Many people intuitively react to the suffering of a dog more strongly than to the suffering of a human. That doesn't make dogs more important than humans.

You keep repeating that you and 'many others' / 'most people' are speciesists, as if this somehow justified speciesism. A hundred years ago most people were racists. Of course they were. People are not rational beings, people are cultural beings. Cultures evolve.

To someone like me, who's actually spent years writing books on the subject, these conversations are honestly f***ing tiring. I hate this. This wears me out. I mean, let's face it: you don't like it when Morrissey compares the modern meat industry to the Holocaust mainly because you personally eat meat. You find the comparison uncomfortable. Therefore you don't like the idea of it being factual. And that's it. You can admit this without going vegetarian.

Many of your arguments have been inconsistent and, more than anything else, irrelevant. (Reading your responses, I often find myself wondering: how on Earth is this relevant to anything I said?) You claim that 'many vegans' use 'emotional arguments', yet the only emotional arguments in this conversation have been written by you. According to you, some vegan somewhere has claimed that animals are 'sacred' - so what? What does that have to do with our conversation? I'm an atheist. I don't think that anybody is 'sacred'. In this conversation, many posters have used very good, extremely rational arguments to explain why your arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new invalid arguments. -> Other posters explain why these arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new pseudo-philosophical crap, and I'm sure this could go on forever. You clearly haven't thought this through. That's okay. Accept that in this conversation, other posters make more sense than you do. They don't have their moral self-image at stake. Give up.

_____________________________

On some of your latest arguments:

"Humans have a potential for great suffering because of our potential for interconnectedness." As I said, this isn't relevant. We are talking about the meat industry. The animals in the meat industry have enough suffering even without the burden of their parents. They already suffer every second of every day.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that all vertebrates are complex, sentient beings. Now, suddenly: "We don't know how much of what we are seeing is fright or just behaviors that look like fright responses. A cat may hear a noise and react--its ears pop up and it runs under the couch. Does she actually experience fear? Pain? Suffering? Or are we interpreting what looks like these things, to be that? Anthropomorphism?" Cut the crap!

I wrote: "About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry."

Your response: "It just isn't ALL about suffering, as far as I am concerned. It is more than that. Suffering is unavoidable, inevitable. In fact, it can be argued that suffering is a part of the human condition, just as much as pleasure is. And that a flat line, no pleasure/pain dichotomy, or just a constant steady stream of pleasure, would be undesirable. The lows make the highs noticeable. We need that contrast. It is what being human is all about."

I don't see how this is relevant. The Holocaust was wrong because it caused pain and suffering. Period. That 'more than that' factor sounds religious. It does not exist in scientific reality.

What I wrote about the amounts of suffering ^ makes complete sense. It should end this conversation. Since you're unable to tell me that I'm wrong, you should admit that I'm right: the meat industry is a greater crime than the Holocaust, since it creates more pain and suffering.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that suffering is the point. Now, suddenly: "Humans have equal moral value. But NOT because we all have the potential to suffer. But because we are human with human QUALITIES." This is religion. You could just as well say that only white people have equal moral value, because only white people have 'white people qualities'. The only morally relevant thing that a popular child genius and a homeless, mentally challenged orphan have in common is their ability to suffer if we hurt them. That's why we shouldn't hurt them. = human rights. This applies to non-human animals just as well. = animal rights.

Finally:

You say that all humans are morally equal as if this (unlike animal rights) was some sort of universal truth. It's not a universal truth. You've simply learned the concept of human rights. If you think about it, equal human rights don't necessarily make much 'sense'. This is the first time in the history of our species when people claim to believe that all humans are equal. It is not a natural idea. It is just as unnatural as the idea of animal rights. Hopefully, societies will eventually adopt the unnatural idea of animal rights the same way they've now adopted the unnatural idea of human rights. It would be fair.

To assume that all humans are morally equal isn't any more obvious than to assume that all sentient beings are morally equal. (In fact, the latter is the more consistent option.) If we start to measure an individual's value by, say, counting their family members, we lose the whole point; human rights, just like animal rights, are a matter of faith and agreement. They're not 'real'. We simply have to choose to start believing in them.

This is a f***ing massive post! I hope we can seriously wrap it up here. There isn't really anything smart to add. Thank you, my friend. o7


Was met with THIS response:


I appreciate such a careful, well thought-out response. I can tell that you care very deeply about animal rights. It sounds like this is your greatest passion in life. This is admirable. You have thought about these issues far more than I have. I have read less than a dozen books on the issue. I have concerned myself more with human rights. I agree that the concept, 'rights', is a construct, and a fairly new one. Perhaps you are right, that culturally we will evolve to see animal rights as a no-brainer, much in the same way we view human rights today, in the developed west.

I'd love to read one or more of your books. You can send me a PM or email if you want. Maybe by reading some more, I will see things differently. I am open to new ideas.

Since she has no capacity to respond to any of the points mentioned, (and there are many opportunities) she does all she CAN do. Kiss his ass and try to make him her friend. THAT WAY, she looks like a reasonable, thoughtful, inquisitive, comapssionate being ALL THE WHILE completely DISMISSING AND DODGING his every point.

Jenny's game is simple. Kiss ass, make friends, maybe even throw in some flowers :flowers: because afterall this isn't a discussion site, it's an episode of the f***ing BACHELOR in her brain and she needs to BE MOST POPULAR. But give her some real intellectual gristle to chew and she can't. because she's wearing INTELLIGENCE dentures. And as a result this entire effort will be completely dismissed and ignored, BUT THE GOAL IS ACHIEVED. We're back to talking about JENNY. How SHE can read his book and SHE can be open to ideas. But she isn't, it's a ruse. Like the ruse that McDonald's is looking out for us and wants us to eat healthy with their McCRAPS but they know what really sells, the Big Mac Fries combo #1 that Jenny calls FLATTERY. In 24 hours she'll be back to pushing SPECIEISM and CARNISM and everything that's killing our f***ing planet.
 
Last edited:

Chip

Member
This thread is really pathetic even for Solo-standards. How many of you on this thread are in middle school?

Geezer--maybe you should go out for basketball in the spring and really show her. You can sit at the cool kids table at your middle school cafeteria with the other basketball bros and not let reality bites join you. That will show her. She'll have to go home and listen to Avril Lavirgne on loop thinking of how you slighted her by being so cool.

Once you graduate from middle school you'll feel stupid though.
 

!Viva Hate!

pls scream inside your heart ⚧
I know what you look like, Viva. You’re a short and fat and you wear nerd glasses. If I knew this earlier I never would have let you flirt with me via the PMs. I’m not into dweebs.

Do I need to call INS? How about I dip my short, fat nuts in your taco grease coated mouth when you open it again to say something stupid?
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
This thread is really pathetic even for Solo-standards. How many of you on this thread are in middle school?

Geezer--maybe you should go out for basketball in the spring and really show her. You can sit at the cool kids table at your middle school cafeteria with the other basketball bros and not let reality bites join you. That will show her. She'll have to go home and listen to Avril Lavirgne on loop thinking of how you slighted her by being so cool.

Once you graduate from middle school you'll feel stupid though.

I realize realitybites has jizzed all over your face with the notion that you're some type of literati while completely (and apparently unaware) derailing a thread about Morrissey, but spare me the Junior High scenario. You are a f***ing idiot, Chip. Please continue thinking solo is the problem. You couldn't spot the qualifier of an argument if Foucault rose from the dead and highlighted it with the blood of his French Structuralist HIV blood. f*** off, phoney. We all know you were the last one picked for the dodgeball team. Butts up 7-up, Chip is on court.
 
Top Bottom