On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"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,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.


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.


Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that. You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?


[..]

==========================
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.


No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

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.


Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

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.


If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
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.

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.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then? Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.