right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of
us born since World War II.


I have
No.

I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist.

Angus Macmillan

No, you probably can't.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:54:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:23:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:38:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.
Now that's ironic.
Not in the slightest.
Profoundly! Stunningly!
Nothing profound or stunning about
The irony of your plagiarized comment is, indeed, stunning and
profound. You are blind, angie girl, mostly blind to your own lack of
ability.

In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Parrot.

Liar.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:37:47 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:13:57 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
news:r8pa83l8bln8t9spkove3be0n2pa4ff210@4ax. com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote

None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.

Now that's ironic.


Not in the slightest.

You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly
thought-out
knee-jerk responding.


Not at all.

Like that.

If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you.

And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument.


I have already done so.

Summarize it for me, you're articulate, right?


I already have. Look back in the thread.

I can't find anything remotely resembling an argument. If it's there
please
copy and paste it into a new reply.


Look it up.

I looked through your messages on this thread. The few comments you made
that had any substance to them were refuted, like this one...

You:
We ALL kill wildlife in the course of our daily lives but the
difference is that some people deliberately take the decision to kill
them when there is no necessity to do so.

That appears to be a pillar of your position, and it is utter nonsense,
"necessity" in the statement is a deliberate misnomer. Most of the
consumption-impacts you cause are not "necessity" based.

If you didn't understand it before you're unlikely to understand it
now.

I understand perfectly, you enjoy posing as a great saviour of animals, it
feeds your ego.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:49:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


No, you never even tried. You couldn't.


Of course I did. You just didn't have the mental capacity to
understand the argument.

The following is not a coherent argument, that has been established.

You:
We ALL kill wildlife in the course of our daily lives but the
difference is that some people deliberately take the decision to kill
them when there is no necessity to do so.

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now


Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur

You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have
already done
so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for
those of
us born since World War II.


I have
No.

I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist.

Angus Macmillan

No, you probably can't.


You've altered my post again and answered it yourself.

You won't answer a straight question, yet you hang around wasting time
anyway. What do you expect?

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

"Rupert" wrote
On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:44:10 -0700, Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.


You wont get any sense out of Jonny Ball, he has short legs and is
bald you know? ;-)

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.


What judgmental attitude? What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones".

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.


What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones".


Get more specific. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".


Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman. We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.

You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.

On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.


Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.


In what respects do we disagree?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.


Which counterexamples are you advocating?

You have lots of judgmental

attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms
to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals,
because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid
criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.


Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing
essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite.

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack
on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world,
and an irrational one at that.

We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.


In what respects do we disagree?

I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it
morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their
lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this
belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could
not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods.

To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree.


[..]

On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms
to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals,
because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid
criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.

Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing
essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite.


I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this
newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not.

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack
on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world,
and an irrational one at that.


You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. I'm not even clear with
which aspects of it you disagree.

We may very well agree that the status

quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.

In what respects do we disagree?

I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it
morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their
lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this
belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could
not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods.

To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree.


I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that
"their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does
that rule out, exactly?