On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.