On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:02:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
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 ?
See my other replies, snarky sophomoric angie girl.

Where?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.


I have answered it.
You haven't, angie girl. You can't. You've danced and
tried to evade, and have looked stupid, but you haven't
answered it.


Of course I've answered it.

No, you haven't even tried, angie girl. You couldn't;
you wouldn't know how to begin.


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.
You wrote evasive, sophomoric bullshit.



No.

Yes, angie girl - evasive, sophomoric bullshit.


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?
In all ways, sophomoric little angie girl.



How?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


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?
In every way, sophomoric unserious little angie girl.



You don't know

I do know, angie girl. Everyone who reads your
sophomoric, unserious bullshit knows, 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.


Where?
Every post of yours, angie girl.



How do you know every post I write?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

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.
Yes, angie girl, you do.



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.


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't. I showed you already. You
know where, angie girl, so no need to do your cutesy
unfunny unserious question routine.


No.


Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.
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.
They were bullshit, angie girl.

You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.

I already have.

You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.


See other post.
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 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
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?
In the thread, angie girl.

Which post.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It
demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious
purpose, angie girl.


No it doesn't.

Yes, it does, angie girl.


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



How?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.


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


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


How?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


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


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't.


Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't.



Yes

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.

In what way?
Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_,
angie girl.

How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Where?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



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


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



You're winning

I know.


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.
You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but
blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy,
regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of
serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl,
because you don't have the ability to examine your
stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie
girl - it's a pose.


Why not?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


See other post



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 23:30:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:10:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, 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.


Where above?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



I don't see it.

Yes, you do, angie girl. We know you do, angie girl -
that's why you're doing the sophomoric bad-faith
bullshit dance.

You're beaten.


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.


Whiffed off from what?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Why?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


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.


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



How?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.
Where have I admitted anything?
In every post, angie girl, you admit by your failure to
respond coherently that you can't defend your beliefs.
Every time you smirk and giggle and pose one of your
unserious, bad faith questions, angie girl, you are
admitting your inability to defend your beliefs.


In what way?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


See other post



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 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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.

Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.



Of course they are. It involves "rights".


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.

So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.



I have already defended 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.

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 in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm


War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour and I don't oppose
farming.




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?

I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".


Same thing .




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.

No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.


It's still human behaviour.



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.

Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.


It doesn't prevent killing.



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.

War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.

Which is part of human behaviour.

Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by
comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is
terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining your
own moral position.



I haven'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.

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.

How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?


Both are human behaviour. War is immoral and I don't oppose farming.


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

Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly
confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your
position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent.


Ditto.



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)

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:22:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" 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
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.
You're trying to say that human deaths are comparable
to the animal deaths in which you needlessly
participate. I have demonstrated elsewhere exactly why
they're not comparable. Go read the other posts.


They're all a result of human behaviour.
They're fundamentally different, angie girl, for
reasons I've noted from which you have fearfully run away.


I see

You see that I've beaten you bloody, angie girl. It's
been a pleasure.

You've run away from my explanation every time, angie
girl. *You* are the one who can't cope, 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.
So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human
behaviour.

It's all human behaviour.
It is not condoned in the same way you condone, daily,
the slaughter of animals on your behalf.

Variations in condoning is also human behaviour
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for reasons
I've elaborated that you have fearfully avoided
addressing. Humans have rights, and the relative
infrequency of lethal accidents to humans is reflected
in that. Animals do not have right, and consequently
they are slaughtered indiscriminately, including in the
course of putting food in your hypocritical mouth.



Humans have rights and are slaughtered indiscriminately.

No, angie girl, they aren't. You're lying. They
aren't slaughtered indiscriminately, and you know it.
You also know there are differences in scale and scope,
and you also know that there is nothing systematic
about it. Yes, angie girl, you know that the animal
deaths and human deaths are qualitatively different,
and thus are not comparable. You know this, angie
girl, but you run away from it, in fear.


Your attempt at a _tu quoque_ has been rebuffed. You
have not morally justified your participation in
needless animal slaughter.


I oppose needless animal slaughter. I don't oppose farming.
You *participate* in processes that include "needless"
animal slaughter as an inherent part of the operation.
"Needless" animal slaughter occurred in the course of
producing every speck of food you eat. The slaughter
itself is "needless", in the sense that the food could,
at great expense, be produced without doing it; but
more to the point, angie girl, YOUR participation in
the process is entirely needless, as you could, if you
really took animal "rights" seriously, withdraw from
the process altogether.


In what way?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


But you don't, angie girl - you don't, because you're a
hypocrite.



Why?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.
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.
No.

Yes.
No, angie girl, it isn't nonsense. Blurting "nonsense"
is not a coherent or rational response, angie girl.



Why do you do it?

I don't, angie girl. I give coherent and rational
responses to your squealing bullshit, and you then try
to act cute and pose bad faith, unserious questions;
then you run away, fearfully.


Give it up, angie girl. Human wars on one another have
nothing to do with your failure to justify your
participation in animal slaughter.


They are the result of human behaviour.
Repeating your absurd comment won't lend any more
meaning to it, angie girl. The human deaths are not
comparable to the massive slaughter of animals in
agriculture, angie girl. There are serious qualitative
differences that I have elaborated, and from which you
have fearfully run away.



Not at all.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


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?
You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called
"ethical" reasons.
Who said?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Who's that?

You, angie girl.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



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.
Not comparable, for reasons I have given which you have
ignored because you know you're beaten.


In your dreams.
No, in the hard light of day, angie girl. You are
beaten, angie girl. You can't defend your bogus
"ethical" beliefs, and so you didn't even try.



I have already.

You haven't, angie girl; you never even tried.


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.
You have no basis except leftist ideology for
disagreeing. What he stated is true, and he has not
contradicted himself, angie girl.


Tell that to the Iraqis, the Sudanese and the Palestinians.
We're talking about YOUR needless participation in
processes that slaughter animals, angie girl. Trying
to point the finger at someone else is ethically wrong
and logically invalid. You claim to support animal
"rights", angie girl, yet you participate daily in
processes that routinely and massively violate those
so-called rights. Leave the Iraqis and Sudanese and
Palestinians out of it, angie girl - this is about you
and your failure to live up to your so-called "ethics".



Why?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits
by their own species?
He didn't say by their own species, angie girl. You
fabricated that.
I'm just pointing it out .
You fabricated "it", angie girl. He didn't say it or
imply it.



Implied.

False. Stop lying.


And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by
their own species as humans do systematically slaughter
wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat.
What "wild" animals do I eat?
I didn't say you eat any animals, angie girl. I said
that wild animals are slaughtered so that you can eat.

In what way?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


It is so. You may not eat any animal bits at all,
angie girl, but that doesn't mean that wild animals
don't die in the course of getting food to your table.
They do.



I don't disagree.

You don't need to participate in it, angie girl. Your
voluntary participation gives the lie to your claim to
"respect the so-called "rights" of animals, angie girl.
You do not "respect" any so-called "rights" of
animals, angie girl - you violate them daily.


I have explained that wildlife is killed by all of us in our daily
lives to survive.

But *you*, angie girl, claim to believe in animal
"rights". These killing are violations of those
so-called "rights", yet you do nothing to stop your
participation. You're a lying hypocrite, angie girl.


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.
It does not happen daily in developed countries as a
systematic feature of social organization and activity,
angie girl, and it does not happen in anything remotely
close to the scope and scale that it does to animals.

You know this, angie girl, but you keep feigning blindness.


Take a trip to Baghdad
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



See above.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.
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.
No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and
sanctimony right side up, in plain sight.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


You haven't answered the question.

I stuffed it down your throat, angie girl.

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.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:


I have defended my position many times.
You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but
blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy,
regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of
serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl,
because you don't have the ability to examine your
stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie
girl - it's a pose.

Why not?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


See my other snarky, unserious, bitchy bullshit.

Angus Macmillan

Already seen, already disposed of, angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:30:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:


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.
Where have I admitted anything?
In every post, angie girl, you admit by your failure to
respond coherently that you can't defend your beliefs.
Every time you smirk and giggle and pose one of your
unserious, bad faith questions, angie girl, you are
admitting your inability to defend your beliefs.

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


See my other unserious, sophomoric, snarky bullshit post

Angus Macmillan

Already disposed of, little bitch angie girl.

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, 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.
Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.



Of course they are.

No.


It involves "rights".

It involves your daily hypocritical violation of animal
"rights".


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.
So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.



I have already defended it.

Not once. You wouldn't have a clue how to start.


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 in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm


War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour

We're talking about your daily violation of animal
"rights", which demonstrates your hypocrisy.


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?
I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".


Same thing .

No.

But you are a fatuous "ethical vegetarian", if not a
full-fledged loony "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.
No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.


It's still human behaviour.

non sequitur

This isn't about war, or any other human behavior
except your massive and glaring hypocrisy.


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.
Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.


It doesn't prevent killing.

The human deaths are not comparable to the collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, as has been demonstrated
and from which you run away in great fear.

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.
War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.

Which is part of human behaviour.

non sequitur


Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by
comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is
terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining your
own moral position.



I haven't.

Right, because you don't have a legitimate moral
position. You are a hypocrite.


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.
How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?


Both are human behaviour.

non sequitur

You are a hypocrite. You participate in animal
slaughter that violates the "rights" you claim,
incoherently, that animals hold. You cannot explain
your hypocrisy, but we can plainly see it.


Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions.
Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly
confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your
position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent.


Ditto.

non sequitur

You can't defend your position. You are a liar and a
hypocrite.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
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.

Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.



Of course they are. It involves "rights".

What does? What the hell are you talking about?


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.

So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.



I have already defended it.

Defended what?




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 in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm


War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour and I don't oppose
farming.

Then why are you using war as analagous to farming? The only thing they have
in common is that they both involve killing by humans. They are not morally
equivalent.

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?

I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".


Same thing .

So what's the problem?


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.

No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.


It's still human behaviour.

So what?





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.

Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.


It doesn't prevent killing.

So what? Traffic laws don't prevent accidents either, the issue is that we
take plausible steps to prevent them. We couldn't do that for animals, not
and survive.




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.

War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.

Which is part of human behaviour.

But it's not a moral example, it's the opposite. It's like arguing that it's
all right to commit murder because soldiers shoot one another.


Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by
comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is
terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining
your
own moral position.



I haven't.

Is that supposed to be a response? You're floundering.


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.

How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?


Both are human behaviour. War is immoral and I don't oppose farming.

Sorry friend, but you have dug yourself a hole that you have not got the
faintest hope of climbing out of.



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

Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly
confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your
position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent.


Ditto.

Who are you and what are doing here? Are you playing with daddy's computer?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:46:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:22:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" 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
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.
You're trying to say that human deaths are comparable
to the animal deaths in which you needlessly
participate. I have demonstrated elsewhere exactly why
they're not comparable. Go read the other posts.


They're all a result of human behaviour.
They're fundamentally different, angie girl, for
reasons I've noted from which you have fearfully run away.


I see

You see that I've beaten you bloody, angie girl. It's
been a pleasure.

You've run away from my explanation every time, angie
girl. *You* are the one who can't cope, angie girl.



You're deluding yourself :-))

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.
It is not condoned in the same way you condone, daily,
the slaughter of animals on your behalf.

Variations in condoning is also human behaviour
The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for reasons
I've elaborated that you have fearfully avoided
addressing. Humans have rights, and the relative
infrequency of lethal accidents to humans is reflected
in that. Animals do not have right, and consequently
they are slaughtered indiscriminately, including in the
course of putting food in your hypocritical mouth.



Humans have rights and are slaughtered indiscriminately.

No, angie girl, they aren't. You're lying. They
aren't slaughtered indiscriminately, and you know it.

Of course they are.

You also know there are differences in scale and scope,
and you also know that there is nothing systematic
about it. Yes, angie girl, you know that the animal
deaths and human deaths are qualitatively different,
and thus are not comparable. You know this, angie
girl, but you run away from it, in fear.



I know differently.


Your attempt at a _tu quoque_ has been rebuffed. You
have not morally justified your participation in
needless animal slaughter.


I oppose needless animal slaughter. I don't oppose farming.
You *participate* in processes that include "needless"
animal slaughter as an inherent part of the operation.
"Needless" animal slaughter occurred in the course of
producing every speck of food you eat. The slaughter
itself is "needless", in the sense that the food could,
at great expense, be produced without doing it; but
more to the point, angie girl, YOUR participation in
the process is entirely needless, as you could, if you
really took animal "rights" seriously, withdraw from
the process altogether.


In what way?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot :-))

But you don't, angie girl - you don't, because you're a
hypocrite.



Why?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot :-))


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.
No.

Yes.
No, angie girl, it isn't nonsense. Blurting "nonsense"
is not a coherent or rational response, angie girl.



Why do you do it?

I don't, angie girl. I give coherent and rational
responses to your squealing bullshit, and you then try
to act cute and pose bad faith, unserious questions;
then you run away, fearfully.



There's nothing coherent about you.


Give it up, angie girl. Human wars on one another have
nothing to do with your failure to justify your
participation in animal slaughter.


They are the result of human behaviour.
Repeating your absurd comment won't lend any more
meaning to it, angie girl. The human deaths are not
comparable to the massive slaughter of animals in
agriculture, angie girl. There are serious qualitative
differences that I have elaborated, and from which you
have fearfully run away.



Not at all.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot.

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?
You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called
"ethical" reasons.
Who said?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Who's that?

You, angie girl.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.




Parrot.


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.
Not comparable, for reasons I have given which you have
ignored because you know you're beaten.


In your dreams.
No, in the hard light of day, angie girl. You are
beaten, angie girl. You can't defend your bogus
"ethical" beliefs, and so you didn't even try.



I have already.

You haven't, angie girl; you never even tried.



Of course I have.


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.
You have no basis except leftist ideology for
disagreeing. What he stated is true, and he has not
contradicted himself, angie girl.


Tell that to the Iraqis, the Sudanese and the Palestinians.
We're talking about YOUR needless participation in
processes that slaughter animals, angie girl. Trying
to point the finger at someone else is ethically wrong
and logically invalid. You claim to support animal
"rights", angie girl, yet you participate daily in
processes that routinely and massively violate those
so-called rights. Leave the Iraqis and Sudanese and
Palestinians out of it, angie girl - this is about you
and your failure to live up to your so-called "ethics".



Why?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot.


Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits
by their own species?
He didn't say by their own species, angie girl. You
fabricated that.
I'm just pointing it out .
You fabricated "it", angie girl. He didn't say it or
imply it.



Implied.

False. Stop lying.


Not false.


And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by
their own species as humans do systematically slaughter
wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat.
What "wild" animals do I eat?
I didn't say you eat any animals, angie girl. I said
that wild animals are slaughtered so that you can eat.

In what way?

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot.

It is so. You may not eat any animal bits at all,
angie girl, but that doesn't mean that wild animals
don't die in the course of getting food to your table.
They do.



I don't disagree.

You don't need to participate in it, angie girl. Your
voluntary participation gives the lie to your claim to
"respect the so-called "rights" of animals, angie girl.
You do not "respect" any so-called "rights" of
animals, angie girl - you violate them daily.



See above.


I have explained that wildlife is killed by all of us in our daily
lives to survive.

But *you*, angie girl, claim to believe in animal
"rights". These killing are violations of those
so-called "rights", yet you do nothing to stop your
participation. You're a lying hypocrite, angie girl.



What rights?




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.
It does not happen daily in developed countries as a
systematic feature of social organization and activity,
angie girl, and it does not happen in anything remotely
close to the scope and scale that it does to animals.

You know this, angie girl, but you keep feigning blindness.


Take a trip to Baghdad
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



See above.

Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Parrot.

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.
No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and
sanctimony right side up, in plain sight.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


You haven't answered the question.

I stuffed it down your throat, angie girl.


You still haven't answered the question.


But parrots can't answer questions they just repeat themselves
endlessly.

You to a T.


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 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:57:12 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, 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.
Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.



Of course they are.

No.


It involves "rights".

It involves your daily hypocritical violation of animal
"rights".


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.
So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.



I have already defended it.

Not once. You wouldn't have a clue how to start.


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 in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm


War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour

We're talking about your daily violation of animal
"rights", which demonstrates your hypocrisy.


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?
I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".


Same thing .

No.

But you are a fatuous "ethical vegetarian", if not a
full-fledged loony "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.
No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.


It's still human behaviour.

non sequitur

This isn't about war, or any other human behavior
except your massive and glaring hypocrisy.


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.
Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.


It doesn't prevent killing.

The human deaths are not comparable to the collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, as has been demonstrated
and from which you run away in great fear.

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.
War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.

Which is part of human behaviour.

non sequitur


Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by
comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is
terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining your
own moral position.



I haven't.

Right, because you don't have a legitimate moral
position. You are a hypocrite.


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.
How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?


Both are human behaviour.

non sequitur

You are a hypocrite. You participate in animal
slaughter that violates the "rights" you claim,
incoherently, that animals hold. You cannot explain
your hypocrisy, but we can plainly see it.


Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions.
Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly
confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your
position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent.


Ditto.

non sequitur

You can't defend your position. You are a liar and a
hypocrite.


See my other post.
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 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.


You're getting desperate now :-))


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 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:49:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:


I have defended my position many times.
You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but
blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy,
regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of
serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl,
because you don't have the ability to examine your
stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie
girl - it's a pose.

Why not?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


See my other snarky, unserious, bitchy bullshit.

Angus Macmillan

Already seen, already disposed of, angie girl.


Altering my posts shows how desperate you are.


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 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:51:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:30:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:


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.
Where have I admitted anything?
In every post, angie girl, you admit by your failure to
respond coherently that you can't defend your beliefs.
Every time you smirk and giggle and pose one of your
unserious, bad faith questions, angie girl, you are
admitting your inability to defend your beliefs.

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


See my other unserious, sophomoric, snarky bullshit post

Angus Macmillan

Already disposed of, little bitch angie girl.


Altering my posts shows how desperate you are.


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)