wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq.

They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.
But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a
logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of
needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it
won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser
and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU
need to answer for YOUR needless participation in
animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch
angie girl.


You're contradicting yourself
above.

He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl.
First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_.
Rather than address the legitimate accusation of
hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse
your accuser. That in no way exonerates you.
Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is
bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not
comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided
addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense.

This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your
phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it;
all you do is pay empty lip service to it.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl 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.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.

Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.


What I wrote was:

What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are

The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound
reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored.
The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal
deaths differ from the human deaths in

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie
girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable
with the human deaths.

But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical
fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie
girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in
the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you
have no need to participate, but choose to do so.


So we all kill animals and humans

Not comparable, angie girl.


and that's why your argument is crap.

No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.


In exactly the same way as humans in the lifestyle you lead which uses
oil.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

No, angie girl.



The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.

The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.

No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals. But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.


So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous.

Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.

self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl 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.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.

What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound
reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored.
The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal
deaths differ from the human deaths in

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie
girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable
with the human deaths.

But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical
fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie
girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in
the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you
have no need to participate, but choose to do so.


So we all kill animals and humans
Not comparable, angie girl.


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.


In exactly the same way as humans

Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl. I gave the reasons why it's not
comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed
off and didn't address it.

You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really
believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do.
You're a liar.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

No, angie girl.



What is it if it's not human behaviour?


The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.

Why is it not part of human behaviour?


The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.



Not at all for the reasons given.



Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.

Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it
follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless
reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong.



No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals.

But I don't oppose farming.



But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.



See above.

So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.



No.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.



You're as daft as he is.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous.

Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.

Why?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq.

They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.

Why?

But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a
logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of
needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it
won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser
and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU
need to answer for YOUR needless participation in
animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl.



How?


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch
angie girl.



Which?


You're contradicting yourself
above.

He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.



Yes.

So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl.
First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_.
Rather than address the legitimate accusation of
hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse
your accuser. That in no way exonerates you.
Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is
bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not
comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided
addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense.


In what way?


This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your
phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it;
all you do is pay empty lip service to it.

Which one?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl 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.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.

What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound
reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored.
The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal
deaths differ from the human deaths in

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie
girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable
with the human deaths.

But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical
fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie
girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in
the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you
have no need to participate, but choose to do so.


So we all kill animals and humans
Not comparable, angie girl.


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.


In exactly the same way as humans

Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.

Why not?


I gave the reasons why it's not
comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed
off and didn't address it.


No you didn't.



You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really
believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do.


Wjy?


You're a liar.

In what way?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza

If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.

Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?

War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.

The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This
is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human
behaviour.

Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very
little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock.
Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid
them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population
of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like
food production at all.

So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of
livestock as brutal and immoral? It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and
illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production
and gathering of food.

You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.

So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy,
we are not at war with animals.
Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace
No, angie girl.



What is it if it's not human behaviour?

The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.

All part of human behaviour.
Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.

Why is it not part of human behaviour?

It is qualitatively different from the collateral and
deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl.


The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.



Not at all

Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it.


for the reasons given.

You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've
given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.

Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it
follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless
reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong.

You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the
line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your*
food's production causes animals needlessly to be
slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but
you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything
concrete to avoid the needless death of animals.


No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals.

But I don't oppose farming.

You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal
doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly,
indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits,
angie girl, then it has no rights at all.

You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl.


But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.



See above.

You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie
girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy,
and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out
of it.


So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.



No.

Yes, angie girl, you do.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.



You're as daft as he is.

Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous.
Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.

Why?

See my earlier replies.

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq.
They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.

Why?

See my earlier explanation.


But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a
logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of
needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it
won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser
and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU
need to answer for YOUR needless participation in
animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl.



How?

However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim
animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in
processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent
feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a
hypocrite.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch
angie girl.



Which?

There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl
bullshit again...


You're contradicting yourself
above.
He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.



Yes.

No, angie girl, he didn't.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl.
First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_.
Rather than address the legitimate accusation of
hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse
your accuser. That in no way exonerates you.
Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is
bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not
comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided
addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense.


In what way?

Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_,
angie girl.

We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious
questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning"
by doing this?


This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your
phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it;
all you do is pay empty lip service to it.

Which one?

You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie
girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you
can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent
pseudo-ethical beliefs.

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl 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.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound
reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored.
The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal
deaths differ from the human deaths in

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie
girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable
with the human deaths.

But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical
fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie
girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in
the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you
have no need to participate, but choose to do so.


So we all kill animals and humans
Not comparable, angie girl.


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.

In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.

Why not?

See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


I gave the reasons why it's not
comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed
off and didn't address it.


No you didn't.

Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.


You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really
believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do.


Wjy?

You're a bitch, angie girl.


You're a liar.

In what way?

In every way, angie girl.

Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs,
little bitch angie girl.

On Jun 27, 1:37 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl 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.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.

If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound
reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored.
The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal
deaths differ from the human deaths in

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie
girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable
with the human deaths.

But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical
fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie
girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in
the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you
have no need to participate, but choose to do so.

So we all kill animals and humans
Not comparable, angie girl.

and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.

In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.

Why not?

See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.

I gave the reasons why it's not
comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed
off and didn't address it.

No you didn't.

Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.

You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really
believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do.

Wjy?

You're a bitch, angie girl.

You're a liar.

In what way?

In every way, angie girl.

Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs,
little bitch angie girl.




still abusing wimmin eh, Goober?

What a chickenshit putz!







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza

If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.

Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?

War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.


Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.


The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This
is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human
behaviour.


It's all human behaviour.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very
little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock.
Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid
them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population
of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like
food production at all.


Nonsense. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to
grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later.



So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of
livestock as brutal and immoral?

Who said I was a vegan?


It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and
illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production
and gathering of food.


Just like war in and around the world.



You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.


You say, "Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great
numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in
the case of livestock" Which I agree with.

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.

Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits
by their own species?

Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.



So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.

It's you who has everything upside down.

Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy,
we are not at war with animals.
Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace
No, angie girl.



What is it if it's not human behaviour?

The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.

All part of human behaviour.
Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too.

Why is it not part of human behaviour?

It is qualitatively different from the collateral and
deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl.


Why ?

The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands,
unanswered. You *can't* answer it.



Not at all

Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it.



I have answered it.


for the reasons given.

You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've
given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm.



Read what I wrote.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating,
daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought"
to hold.

Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it
follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless
reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong.

You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the
line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your*
food's production causes animals needlessly to be
slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but
you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything
concrete to avoid the needless death of animals.



In what way?



No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single
speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if
you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow
all your own using methods that did not systematically
slaughter animals.

But I don't oppose farming.

You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal
doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly,
indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits,
angie girl, then it has no rights at all.


Neither do humans and it happens every day.

Where have you been all your life?

You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl.



How?

But no - you choose, because you're
a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience,
to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the
while blabbering away sanctimoniously and
hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of
animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights.



See above.

You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie
girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy,
and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out
of it.



Where?


So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl.



No.

Yes, angie girl, you do.



No.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl.

He didn't contradict himself.



You're as daft as he is.

Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself.



Yes.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous.
Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim
is empty; it's bullshit.

Why?

See my earlier replies.


See mine.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq.
They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.

Why?

See my earlier explanation.



Where?

But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a
logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of
needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it
won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser
and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU
need to answer for YOUR needless participation in
animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl.



How?

However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim
animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in
processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent
feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a
hypocrite.



Why?


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.
Lets have some specifics in detail.
Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch
angie girl.



Which?

There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl
bullshit again...



In what way?


You're contradicting yourself
above.
He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.



Yes.

No, angie girl, he didn't.



Yes.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl.
First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_.
Rather than address the legitimate accusation of
hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse
your accuser. That in no way exonerates you.
Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is
bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not
comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided
addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense.


In what way?

Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_,
angie girl.


How?


We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious
questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning"
by doing this?



Winning what?


This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your
phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it;
all you do is pay empty lip service to it.

Which one?

You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie
girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you
can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent
pseudo-ethical beliefs.

I have defended my position many times. If you haven't the
intelligence to comprehend I suggest you ask some ten-year-old to help
you.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)