Slightly :deviant: behaviour last night, watched the women's footy

[Burney]

But he's never suggested that he isn't a legitimate president, I don't think. And he also begrudgingly praised his recent speech in Poland.

But yes, his main problem with Trump is aesthetic. But bear in mind Harris is a man who is pathologically obsessed with ethical human behaviour, to the extent that he even wrote a book saying that lying is ALWAYS ethically wrong (except in cases where lying would keep someone out of danger). AND he's a vegan!

Basically, he's a proper weirdo. But I do love him.

To be fair, I didn't say he'd said he wasn't legitimate, I said he'd said he wasn't fit.

So all lying is ethically wrong? What if your wife asks if you still find her attractive? Surely it's fine to say 'Yes' even if she's a 17-stone heifer?

[Monty92]

To be fair, I didn't say he'd said he wasn't legitimate, I said he'd said he wasn't fit.

So all lying is ethically wrong? What if your wife asks if you still find her attractive? Surely it's fine to say 'Yes' even if she's a 17-stone heifer?

Nope, I've not read the book but I believe Harris would say you should tell her the truth (in as tactful a way as you can muster).

Let's both try it with our respectives next time and see how we get on

Hang on, what did I just say?

[Burney]

Nope, I've not read the book but I believe Harris would say you should tell her the truth (in as tactful a way as you can muster).

Let's both try it with our respectives next time and see how we get on

Hang on, what did I just say?

I believe you insulted both our wives.

Why do I strongly suspect that he's a vegan because it's the only logically and ethically consistent way of being a vegetarian?

Like you say, a weirdo.

[Monty92]

I believe you insulted both our wives.

Why do I strongly suspect that he's a vegan because it's the only logically and ethically consistent way of being a vegetarian?

Like you say, a weirdo.

He's one of them types who believes that in 100 years we'll look back on our treatment of animals in the same way as we look back on our ancestors' treatment of slaves.

[Burney]

He's one of them types who believes that in 100 years we'll look back on our treatment of animals in the same way as we look back on our ancestors' treatment of slaves.

Yeah. He's wrong. History demonstrates pretty clearly that mankind does not willingly forego sources of physical pleasure on ethical grounds. Prostitution has been going strong since time immemorial despite the fact that it effectively commoditises human beings to satisfy a physical craving. Given which, it seems unlikely to me that as a species we're going to get around to *actually* being bothered about dead animals any time soon.