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

][..]
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,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

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.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.

[..]
==========================
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.

Thereby meaningless.

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?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is
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?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.

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.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line
he is comfortable with.