On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl 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?
See my earlier explanation.


Where?
In the thread, angie girl.

Which post.

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


Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It
demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious
purpose, angie girl.


No it doesn't.

Yes, it does, angie girl.


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?
However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim
animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in
processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent
feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a
hypocrite.


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



How?

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



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?
There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl
bullshit again...


In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


How?

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


You're contradicting yourself
above.
He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't.


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't.



Yes

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.
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?
Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_,
angie girl.

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



Where?

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



We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious
questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning"
by doing this?


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



You're winning

I know.


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?
You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie
girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you
can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent
pseudo-ethical beliefs.
I have defended my position many times.
You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but
blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy,
regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of
serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl,
because you don't have the ability to examine your
stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie
girl - it's a pose.


Why not?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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)