On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"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".


Get more specific. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

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

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

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.

Yawn.