On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...

snippage..



Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that
perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't
I criticize people for supporting such abuses?
==========================

And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about
animals
when ALL they do is avoid meat.

Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do
significantly more than just avoid meat.

It is equally right of us to criticize
those that
ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what
they
think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths
of billions of
animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are
just blowing
hot air and hypocrisy, fool.


That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not
entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very
obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've
got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use
usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society.
That is true of you as well.




snippage...



If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is
necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it
justified?

=======================
there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for
potatoes. There
is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes
far more
brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses.
Why do you
think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point
out the ignorance
and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer?

If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and
potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't
really think that. You've got this idea that just because someone eats
rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any
criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously
utterly absurd. It's a joke. Time and time again you make this
farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that
only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be
boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my
view is more hypocritical than yours. Why is the place where you draw
the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the
point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it,
you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should
either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any
criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I
should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if
you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the
fuss about?