On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl 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. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.
Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace
So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.


Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.

You're trying to say that human deaths are comparable
to the animal deaths in which you needlessly
participate. I have demonstrated elsewhere exactly why
they're not comparable. Go read the other posts.



They're all a result of human behaviour.


The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This
is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.

All part of human behaviour.
So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human
behaviour.


It's all human behaviour.

It is not condoned in the same way you condone, daily,
the slaughter of animals on your behalf.


Variations in condoning is also human behaviour


Your attempt at a _tu quoque_ has been rebuffed. You
have not morally justified your participation in
needless animal slaughter.



I oppose needless animal slaughter. I don't oppose farming.




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.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population
of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like
food production at all.


Nonsense.

No.


Yes.

Give it up, angie girl. Human wars on one another have
nothing to do with your failure to justify your
participation in animal slaughter.



They are the result of human behaviour.



So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of
livestock as brutal and immoral?

Who said I was a vegan?

You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called
"ethical" reasons.

Who said?


It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and
illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production
and gathering of food.


Just like war in and around the world.

Not comparable, for reasons I have given which you have
ignored because you know you're beaten.


In your dreams.

You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.


You say, "Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great
numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in
the case of livestock" Which I agree with.

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.

You have no basis except leftist ideology for
disagreeing. What he stated is true, and he has not
contradicted himself, angie girl.



Tell that to the Iraqis, the Sudanese and the Palestinians. In fact
why not take a trip to Baghdad, get kidnapped and find out just how
much YOUR life is worth?


Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits
by their own species?

He didn't say by their own species, angie girl. You
fabricated that.

I'm just pointing it out .


And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by
their own species as humans do systematically slaughter
wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat.

What "wild" animals do I eat?




Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.

It does not happen daily in developed countries as a
systematic feature of social organization and activity,
angie girl, and it does not happen in anything remotely
close to the scope and scale that it does to animals.

You know this, angie girl, but you keep feigning blindness.



Take a trip to Baghdad


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.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.
It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.

It's you who has everything upside down.

No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and
sanctimony right side up, in plain sight.

In what way?



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)