On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment. I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.


On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.