On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

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

groups.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.

Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths
which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller
than most people's.

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'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my
behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of
evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for
criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that
entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made
the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that
I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I
care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares
about animals in the slightest? What a joke.

What a wheezy whining windbag you are.


Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.





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?

Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and
makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's
a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that.

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.

Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest
level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer
society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity,
and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different
levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive
that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop
out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism
of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they
have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's
absurd.

However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as
a
stepping
stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool.

That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is
contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for
calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you.

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.

Yes, it is.

You have NO requirement to eat either
one, yet you do for your
convinience.

And?

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.

Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population
healthy, no.

Vague and open to interpertation.


Yes.

Yet there you are, doing just
that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which
entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an
absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause
harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make
every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering.
The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation.

Like almost everything you say.


Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation? Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

I have
chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's
any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone
else chooses to draw the line.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.