On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:02:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
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
No, angie girl.


What is it if it's not 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.
Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.
Why is it not part of human behaviour?
It is qualitatively different from the collateral and
deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl.

Why ?
See my other replies, snarky sophomoric angie girl.

Where?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.


Not at all
Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it.


I have answered it.
You haven't, angie girl. You can't. You've danced and
tried to evade, and have looked stupid, but you haven't
answered it.


Of course I've answered it.

No, you haven't even tried, angie girl. You couldn't;
you wouldn't know how to begin.


for the reasons given.
You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've
given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm.


Read what I wrote.
You wrote evasive, sophomoric bullshit.



No.

Yes, angie girl - evasive, sophomoric bullshit.


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.
Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.
Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it
follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless
reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong.
You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the
line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your*
food's production causes animals needlessly to be
slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but
you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything
concrete to avoid the needless death of animals.


In what way?
In all ways, sophomoric little angie girl.



How?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals.
But I don't oppose farming.
You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal
doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly,
indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits,
angie girl, then it has no rights at all.

Neither do humans and it happens every day.

Where have you been all your life?

You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl.


How?
In every way, sophomoric unserious little angie girl.



You don't know

I do know, angie girl. Everyone who reads your
sophomoric, unserious bullshit knows, angie girl.


But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.


See above.
You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie
girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy,
and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out
of it.


Where?
Every post of yours, angie girl.



How do you know every post I write?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.


No.
Yes, angie girl, you do.


No.
Yes, angie girl, you do.



No.

Yes, angie girl, you do.



You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.


You're as daft as he is.
Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself.


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't. I showed you already. You
know where, angie girl, so no need to do your cutesy
unfunny unserious question routine.


No.


Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.




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.
Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.
Why?
See my earlier replies.

See mine.
They were bullshit, angie girl.

You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.

I already have.

You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.


See other post.
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)