right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:46:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:22:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
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.
They're fundamentally different, angie girl, for
reasons I've noted from which you have fearfully run away.

I see
You see that I've beaten you bloody, angie girl. It's
been a pleasure.

You've run away from my explanation every time, angie
girl. *You* are the one who can't cope, angie girl.



You're deluding yourself

No.


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
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for reasons
I've elaborated that you have fearfully avoided
addressing. Humans have rights, and the relative
infrequency of lethal accidents to humans is reflected
in that. Animals do not have right, and consequently
they are slaughtered indiscriminately, including in the
course of putting food in your hypocritical mouth.


Humans have rights and are slaughtered indiscriminately.
No, angie girl, they aren't. You're lying. They
aren't slaughtered indiscriminately, and you know it.

Of course they are.

No, and you know they aren't, too.


You also know there are differences in scale and scope,
and you also know that there is nothing systematic
about it. Yes, angie girl, you know that the animal
deaths and human deaths are qualitatively different,
and thus are not comparable. You know this, angie
girl, but you run away from it, in fear.



I know differently.

We know that you ran away, fearfully.


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.
You *participate* in processes that include "needless"
animal slaughter as an inherent part of the operation.
"Needless" animal slaughter occurred in the course of
producing every speck of food you eat. The slaughter
itself is "needless", in the sense that the food could,
at great expense, be produced without doing it; but
more to the point, angie girl, YOUR participation in
the process is entirely needless, as you could, if you
really took animal "rights" seriously, withdraw from
the process altogether.

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



Parrot

Stupid unserious ****.


But you don't, angie girl - you don't, because you're a
hypocrite.


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



Parrot

Stupid unserious ****.


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.
No, angie girl, it isn't nonsense. Blurting "nonsense"
is not a coherent or rational response, angie girl.


Why do you do it?
I don't, angie girl. I give coherent and rational
responses to your squealing bullshit, and you then try
to act cute and pose bad faith, unserious questions;
then you run away, fearfully.



There's

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



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.
Repeating your absurd comment won't lend any more
meaning to it, angie girl. The human deaths are not
comparable to the massive slaughter of animals in
agriculture, angie girl. There are serious qualitative
differences that I have elaborated, and from which you
have fearfully run away.


Not at all.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Inability to respond noted.



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


Who's that?
You, angie girl.

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



Inability to respond noted.

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.
No, in the hard light of day, angie girl. You are
beaten, angie girl. You can't defend your bogus
"ethical" beliefs, and so you didn't even try.


I have already.
You haven't, angie girl; you never even tried.



Of course I have.

You haven't, angie girl. You never even tried. You
wouldn't know how.


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.
We're talking about YOUR needless participation in
processes that slaughter animals, angie girl. Trying
to point the finger at someone else is ethically wrong
and logically invalid. You claim to support animal
"rights", angie girl, yet you participate daily in
processes that routinely and massively violate those
so-called rights. Leave the Iraqis and Sudanese and
Palestinians out of it, angie girl - this is about you
and your failure to live up to your so-called "ethics".


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

Inability to respond noted.



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 .
You fabricated "it", angie girl. He didn't say it or
imply it.


Implied.
False. Stop lying.


Not false.

Yes, false, angie girl. Stop lying.


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?
I didn't say you eat any animals, angie girl. I said
that wild animals are slaughtered so that you can eat.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Inability to respond noted.



It is so. You may not eat any animal bits at all,
angie girl, but that doesn't mean that wild animals
don't die in the course of getting food to your table.
They do.


I don't disagree.
You don't need to participate in it, angie girl. Your
voluntary participation gives the lie to your claim to
"respect the so-called "rights" of animals, angie girl.
You do not "respect" any so-called "rights" of
animals, angie girl - you violate them daily.



See above.

You wrote incoherent bullshit above.


I have explained that wildlife is killed by all of us in our daily
lives to survive.
But *you*, angie girl, claim to believe in animal
"rights". These killing are violations of those
so-called "rights", yet you do nothing to stop your
participation. You're a lying hypocrite, angie girl.



What rights?

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


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


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



Inability to respond noted.

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

You haven't answered the question.
I stuffed it down your throat, angie girl.


You still haven't answered the question.

You didn't ask any legitimate question, lying little
angie girl.