On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq.

They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.

Why?

But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a
logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of
needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it
won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser
and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU
need to answer for YOUR needless participation in
animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl.



How?


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch
angie girl.



Which?


You're contradicting yourself
above.

He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.



Yes.

So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl.
First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_.
Rather than address the legitimate accusation of
hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse
your accuser. That in no way exonerates you.
Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is
bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not
comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided
addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense.


In what way?


This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your
phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it;
all you do is pay empty lip service to it.

Which one?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)