"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones".

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.


What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.