View Single Post
  #188   Report Post  
Old 05-07-2007, 01:52 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
ontheroad ontheroad is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 11
Default Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!


"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.
========================

Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily.


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.

=======================
ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do
nothing
but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to
call hypocrites like you
to task, killer. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just
that doing so by killing
even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool...

Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer?






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.

==================
No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a
concern to you.
However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a
stepping
stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool.


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.

====================
No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims
of 'saving' animals from
unnecessary death and suffering. You have NO requirement to eat either
one, yet you do for your
convinience.


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.

==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people. Yet there you are, doing just
that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.



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?

===========================
The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. But then,
I expect you do nothing
except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks
for proving your hypocrisy, fool.